You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

More videos from the Setting Time Aright meeting, this time from the session on Truth. The talks covered both the philosophical question of what scientific “truth” is -- Is science as objective as we might hope? -- and the practical question of how we establish scientific truth in a changing landscape in which computers play as much of a role as -- if not more than -- test tubes, particle accelerators and other lab equipment for testing hypotheses.

First up was FQXi-member and investigative journalist Peter Byrne (who wrote a book about Hugh Everett III) talking about dogma and subjectivity in science, using the example of the resistance to Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics that was (is?) largely due to sociological and idealogical reasons:

The video doesn’t show the discussion after Byrne’s talk, but it provoked an indignant reaction from one physicist who asked if Byrne was seriously suggesting that (for instance), despite repeated confirmation of its predictions, the Standard Model is only subjectively true. Michael Reisenberger responded that subjectivity appears in the stories that we use to explain and understand the Standard Model -- and I agree with him. Those of us that spend much of our time writing popular science may be more comfortable with the idea that science involves storytelling, but that’s not just at the popular level. The discussion brings to mind an article that I wrote for Nature last year (“The Large Human Collider”) about social scientists, philosophers and anthropologists who were using CERN as a laboratory for studying the behavior of scientists and the construction of knowledge in large-scale collaborations. In particular, I remember Holger Lyre asking, “Does the Higgs Mechanism Exist?" -- not in the sense of whether or not the LHC will find the Higgs, but in the sense of what actually exists “out there,” if they do find evidence for the Higgs. Quoting from his paper (arXiv:0806.1359v1):

“To be sure, there is nothing wrong with the mathematics of it, but on closer inspection of the “mechanism” it will become clear that a deeper conceptual understanding of the formalism is not at all as obvious and as straightforward as most presentations, notably textbook presentations, of the Higgs mechanism usually pretend. For instance—and as the alert philosophy of physics reader will certainly have noticed already—the status of the symmetries in question, gauge symmetries, is in fact a non-empirical or merely conventional one precisely in the sense that neither global nor local gauge transformations possess any real instantiations (i.e. realizations in the world). Rather their status is comparable to the status of coordinate transformations... How is it then possible to instantiate a mechanism, let alone a dynamics of mass generation, in the breaking of such a kind of symmetry? Suspicions like this should raise philosophical worries about the true ontological and explanatory story behind the Higgs mechanism.”

I usually try and avoid plugging articles I have written on this blog, but since I have already mentioned my LHC article, I’ll bring up another that is relevant to the second talk in the Truth session, also from Nature last year: “Error: Why Scientific Programming Does Not Compute.” That looked at concerns from computer scientists that scientific coding is not as accurate as scientists perhaps believe, and that published results that are based on computational analyses are not reproducible. In the article, I mention recommendations that came out of the Nov 2009 Yale Law School Data and Code Sharing Roundtable in New Haven, Connecticut, organized by Victoria Stodden, urging scientists to provide links to source-code and data used to generate results when publishing. Stodden was at the meeting and spoke at length about these issues in the Truth session, placing them within historical context by looking at how our views of what constitutes scientific truth have changed over the centuries:

Having been vulgar enough to mention two articles that I have written, I may as well throw in a third: “String Theory Finds a Bench Mate”! (Thank you to John Merryman for noticing it, and commenting on it elsewhere in this forum.) It’s about the mathematical connections between string theory and experimental condensed matter physics -- the AdS/CFT conjecture helps predict new states of matter in the lab. I’m bringing this up here as it also touches on the issue of establishing scientific truth. String theory has taken a battering for being divorced from experiment and thus failing to establish its scientific credentials. Although theoretical physics -- more so than other sciences -- sets great store in mathematical elegance, string theorists (at least the ones that I spoke too) were very keen to be able to connect with experiment through this condensed matter link.

But just what do they achieve by doing this? No one on either side claims that the experiments have any bearing on the question of whether string theory provides the correct description of reality at a fundamental level, or whether strings really “exist." But, as John McGreevy told me, if future experiments confirm these string-theory-condensed-matter-predictions, it will help to establish that “strings exist in the Platonic sense.” In the article, I quote Andrew Green saying that string theory may have been misunderstood: "Maybe string theory is not a unique theory of reality, but something deeper — a set of mathematical principles that can be used to relate all physical theories," he says. "Maybe string theory is the new calculus." Any thoughts on this?

B. The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.

one is ABSOLUTELY true, the other is false. If the false one is chosen as a fundamental postulate, then scientists build a "protective belt" around it:

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html

"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

Given B is not smaller than A. May we conclude that A is larger than B? No. A can be equal to B.

Given B is not smaller than A and not equal to A. May we conclude as did Georg Cantor and Dedekind that A is larger than B? No. As Galileo Galilei's Salviati compellingly argued, A and B can be incomparable.

Your alternatives A and B are obviously not even formally mutually exclusive: "Independent of" is not the logical negation of "vary with". The logical complement of white is not black but not white, including e.g. colored.

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

"[SR says] the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not vary with the speed of the observer."

You did perhaps correctly interpret SR although the second postulate did not explicitly state this but claimed constant speed c for the front F of a ray of light without specifying what c refers to.

Shouldn't one first clarify to what the speed s of the observer O relates to? Otherwise I see no basis for any conclusion. By the way, I would prefer to replace observer O by receiver R because the same F can be simultaneously observed from Os that are moving relative to each other.

Shouldn't we question the belief that there is "nothing wrong with the mathematics of it" as long as "a deeper conceptual understanding of the formalism" is missing? You envisioned string theory possibly the new calculus. While I am not in position to comment on string theory, I am pretty sure that there are persistently ignored deficits concerning the conceptually correct use of calculus, see my essays.

What about the Large Human Collider, I think it is worth mentioning that a considerable part of the many many researchers who worked together and measured a speed of neutrinos in excess of the speed of light refused to be named as authors in the belonging paper.

Perhaps we should blame

- those who earlier failed to clarify in detail in what Nimtz was wrong when he measured propagation of signals with a speed in excess of the speed of light and - those who did obviously not learn from Nimtz' fallacy.

Unfortunately, it is more promising for a scientist's career if he looks for any indication of a match between a theory and a measurement than if he carefully reveals flaws even in more or less established tenets.

Exotic new theories, no matter how exciting they may be, cannot substitute dealing with truly foundational questions. There are still enough open questions. I partially disagree with Pentcho Valev. However, why should we always dream of confirmation to the standard model, Higgs and SUSY by means of LHC?

What about missing source codes that relate to publications, I see this deficit mostly a welcome to the authors possibility to evade criticism. There are exceptions. I recall that I was not in position for two reasons to publish an elegant version in usual style when I mimicked the function of cochlea:

It's interesting that the pattern Peter Byrne lays out and Victoria Stodden provides examples, that of the tendency of science to advance through fits and starts, as ideas are born, compete, grow, stabilize, stagnate and then be supplanted by more nuanced concepts, is such an elemental pattern and process of nature, that a discipline founded on the study of the patterns and processes of nature,...

It's interesting that the pattern Peter Byrne lays out and Victoria Stodden provides examples, that of the tendency of science to advance through fits and starts, as ideas are born, compete, grow, stabilize, stagnate and then be supplanted by more nuanced concepts, is such an elemental pattern and process of nature, that a discipline founded on the study of the patterns and processes of nature, wouldn't have found ways to acknowledge and mediate it.

Yet because this is so foundational, it manifests in many ways which our social interactions are very limited in their ability to respond. The more evident and commented on effect is the political, where once momentum forms, there is a feedback loop of promoting that which encourages it and deflecting that which interferes with it.

I think another major cause is intellectually foundational, in that we are what we think. When one is young, the mind is quite open to new ideas and flexible, but lacks the knowledge base to really draw broad based conclusions, but as one gets older, the store of knowledge is much greater, but there is consequently less room for flexibility and frequently many of the earliest and often most influential lessons on which this store of knowledge is built on, are those made on the basis of more limited knowledge. If we are lucky and our earliest education was well informed and beneficial, there is room for much progress, but if the basis of that knowledge has been corrupted, for any number of reasons, what gets built on it is consequently stunted.

Biology overcomes this through regeneration, but society is built on the premise of continuity and growth of knowledge, so that natural resetting transition process doesn't naturally happen as a regular occurrence, but only when when the degree of instability can no longer be avoided. Much as is happening with the current economic situation.

Within physics, it is safe to say the current stage is one of big picture stability, bordering on stagnation, with most efforts going to fill out the current model, rather than really trying to look beyond it.

In that regard, I would like to apply this aforementioned pattern of cyclical expansion/consolidation, growth/decay, etc. and apply it to a very basic part of the current model:

Einstein concluded gravity causes space to contract and this is largely enshrined in the physics canon, yet as we all observe, such gravitational processes are also radiating large amounts of energy back out across space. So in the context of this pattern of building up accumulated energy and creating effective structural integrity, which then contracts/collapses/decays, losing that energy again, a process also enshrined in the concept of entropy, it would seem this contraction of mass is only half the picture. So now we have gravity wave theorists spending their careers looking for the gravity waves emanating out from this contraction of mass, when there are quite evident radiation waves emanating from these gravity structures. Could it be that in our very careful examination of the finest mathematical detail, we are completely overlooking the actual physical reality and such a factor as light is the actual gravity wave we cannot find?

Or is it more important to determine whether reality is composed of 4, 8, 16, or 32 dimensions, how one level evolves out of the previous, or whether it eventually decays back down and is therefore not fundamental? Expansion and contraction of dimensions....

How it is possible to observe the Big Bang, or the particle production near the Big Bang?

Why don’t use a spectral image of the space?

I think that is possible to use a single triangular prism, that translate in front of a telescope with low magnification, with a long tube that extract a little section of the refracted rays.

We can search image of the Universe in the not usual spectral line, and it is possible to search in some region that have an unusual emission behavior: if near the Big Bang there are unusual particle, that compose unusual atoms, near great primordial stars, then it is possible to measure unusual spectra emission.

If this work, then it is quickly all the space observation, because it is a surface observation, and it is not like the punctual spectrographic observation.

Like a quiet dance of harmonization between our two hemispheroids, the objectivity and the subjectivity converge.....

It is a very beautiful article resuming this bridge separting the subjectivity and the objectivity. Like a quiet dance of convergences. You know that I prefer the objectivity. That said , I have studied a little the computing and I understand now the characterization of algorythms.

The computing is indeed a wonderful invention, and of course the methods of calculations evolve and complexificate themselves. Now we must admit that the operators and the methods of distribution of numbers are under specific laws. We must admit that it exists difficulties to calculate several foundamental series, like our quantum uniqueness and its finite number for example. If now some mathematical architectures are created, so if they want to explain the correct serie, so the characterization becomes like an universal road when the finite groups are inserted for example. That's why the objectivity in this road is respected. If we take the subjective analyzes like the higgs for example, so we must admit that the extrapolations are just hypothetical. If the fractal of uniqueness is inserted for the bosons and for the fermions, so we have an important universal link, due to rotating spheres in 3D. In this line of reasoning the higgs is a fractal of the light , but the problem is this external cause of mass linked with the informations. If the higgs are a reality for the informations, so the volumes become a key for all synchronizations. But of course it is a subjective interpretation. I liked your article Zeeya. The strings in fact are perhaps not foundamentals for a quantization of mass but the past works can be harmonized with real convergences.

I see several good convergences, possible with the 3D, but of course the finite groups and the correct domains and series are relevant. The strings can become rotating spheres for the quantization of mass. The incompressibility is important for a pure objective realism .

Note that in 1911 Einstein was forced to introduce gravitational time dilation by the implicit assumption that light stretches between the emitter and the receiver (observer) in the form of a CONTINUOUS FIELD. Without this assumption the gravitational time dilation is just absurd:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.html

Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U in different gravitation potentials must be regarded as going at the same rate. On the contrary, we must certainly define the time in K in such a way that the number of wave crests and troughs between S2 and S1 is independent of the absolute value of time: for the process under observation is by nature a stationary one."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796, using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun, arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. One way around this conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's conclusion in 1911."

In 1954 Einstein realised that, by relying too much on the field concept of light, he had in fact killed physics:

Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Of the two statements:

A. The wavelength varies with the speed of the observer.

B. The wavelength does not vary with the speed of the observer.

one is ABSOLUTELY true, the other is false. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the conclusion:

A false, B true

would be obvious:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

although ideologically correct, is regarded as too absurd and therefore dangerous. So John Norton's explicit reference to the wavelength variation is an exception. In principle the topic evokes absolute crimestop:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Michio Kaku: "Now, they have done the experiment again, with a beam spread out over 3 billionths of a second and they still find the neutrino beam outracing the light beam. If you aren't aware already -- This is extremely bad news for relativity. According to Einstein, nothing can go faster than light, so a...

Michio Kaku: "Now, they have done the experiment again, with a beam spread out over 3 billionths of a second and they still find the neutrino beam outracing the light beam. If you aren't aware already -- This is extremely bad news for relativity. According to Einstein, nothing can go faster than light, so a neutrino beam cannot possibly outrace a light beam! If this is the case - All hell breaks loose, time goes backwards and all of modern physics has to essentially be redone. But there is still hope for true believers (like me)."

There is no hope for Einsteiniana's true believers, Michio Kaku, even if the OPERA result is wrong. Did the Maxwell's theory predict a constant speed of light independent of the speed of the observer? You believe yes, John Norton believes you are misstating the physics:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:

Michio Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."

John Norton again: This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Stephen Hawking also believes that the Maxwell's theory predicted a variable speed of light (that is, he is not a true believer):

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

Of course 99% of Einsteinians are true believers, like you, Michio Kaku. By definition, a true believer believes that BOTH the Maxwell's theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

Only the cleverest Einsteinians, "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink", would explicitly declare that the Michelson-Morley experiment in fact confirmed Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, Brian Greene, pp. 43-45: "For example, if you swim through water toward an oncoming water wave, the wave approaches you more quickly; if you swim away from the wave, it approaches you more slowly. Similarly, if you move through the supposed aether toward or away from an oncoming light wave, the light wave's approach should, by the same reasoning, be faster or slower than 670 million miles per hour. But in 1887, when Albert Michelson and Edward Morley measured the speed of light, time and time again they found exactly the same speed of 670 million miles per hour regardless of their motion or that of the light's source. (...) There has been much debate regarding the intellectual roots of Einstein's discovery, but there is no doubt that his unshakable belief in simplicity played a critical role. Einstein was aware of at least some experiments that had failed to detect evidence for the existence of the aether. So why dance around trying to find fault with the experiments? Instead, Einstein declared, take the simple approach: The experiments were failing to find the aether because there is no aether. And since Maxwell's equations describing the motion of light - the motion of electromagnetic waves - do not invoke any such medium, both experiment and theory would converge on the same conclusion: light, unlike any other kind of wave ever encountered, does not need a medium to carry it along. Light is a lone traveler. Light can travel through empty space. But what, then, are we to make of Maxwell's equation giving light a speed of 670 million miles per hour? If there is no aether to provide the standard of rest, what is the what with respect to which this speed is to be interpreted? Again, Einstein bucked convention and answered with ultimate simplicity. If Maxwell's theory does not invoke any particular standard of rest, the most direct interpretation is that we don't need one. The speed of light, Einstein declared, is 670 million miles per hour relative to anything and everything."

Brian Greene's sisyphean effort to cope with the aftermath of his true belief:

Brian Greene: "Now, however, modern physics' notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with "painful but inevitable resignation." The developments since his era have only widened the disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I delight in what I know is the individual's power, however imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition into past, present and future being a useful but subjective organization."

Unfortunately Brian Greene does not mutilate his own mind only - he and another true believer, Brian Cox, are the most efficient mutilators of young minds in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world.

Dynamics and Relativity, Jeffrey Forshaw, Gavin Smith, pp. 113-114: "Just a few years earlier, Maxwell had written down the equations which define the classical theory of electromagnetism. The equations are beautiful and encode the idea that light is an electromagnetic wave. However the equations taken at face value seem to predict that light travels at a speed c=(...) independently of the motion of either the source which produced it or the observer who measures it. This circumstance seems absurd: for a wave travelling through a medium the speed is indeed independent of the motion of the source but it certainly depends upon the motion of the observer. (...) 2nd postulate: The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames. This statement (...) explains in a trivial manner the null result of Michelson-Morley. (...) It constitutes a clean break with classical thinking and it is the source of all of the weird and wonderful physics we shall soon be encountering."

"As long as you travel slower than the speed of light, cause and effect are protected. But if you travel faster than the speed of light, future and past are not protected... do that and you can cause all kinds of trouble," Cox said. "That's why in Einstein's theory speed of light is sacrosanct. That's why physicists care a lot about the speed of light." If Einstein is wrong and speed of light is slower than something else, in this case neutrinos: "It would mean you just have to modify a new structure of time to protect cause and effect."

The lie may be silly but, having been repeated countless times for the last two months, it is now an absolute truth (Goebbels' principle). Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world is well protected for the moment.

No, it is magic. As the wave travels it senses in advance which part of it will hit an observer, as opposed to a brick wall, or just travel into space. And then adjusts the speed of that part accordingly!!!!!

Post dedicated to the thread about quantum correlations, I can not post there !My pc becomes crazzy.

Anomymous, perhaps you are in the team. That is not the problem.

In fact nor Joy or Tom or Ray are true in their works. They just like the play and the game of competitions. Indeed USA and China like copying the real searchers.

I find all that very sad. You can insisty, you can extrapolate, you can copy in saying it is the freedom, you can copy in saying it is the american competition. You can ...yes we can! The freedom and the transparence are not that. I am really shocked by these works of Jo, To And Ray. Indeed I am parano and I find these copies very sad for your country. Probably that your egos and your hormons speak for you, like the monney and the vanity.It is sad, it is not the sciences. I relativate for my health, because I am obliged to accept these human comportments. I am shocked and the word is weak. How people can make that ? Just for this papper? It is sad. Just for the funds and a pseudo credibility ?It is not just, humanistic,universal....where are your values? Where is the integrity, the serious, the universal responsability? Where is the consciousness and the respect of real searchers of truths and gneralities. It is not that the usa. These kinds of comportments destabilize the usa and so the world. Wall street is not a game and it will not be never.If you want I take an airplane and I come at wall streets, it ios not a problem for me you know. I have already gone to africa alone with my guitar, so frankly don't play with my kindness, because you know perhaps0,00000001 per cent of my spirituality and works. I am parano, yes, it is logic when you find an important general discovery. I am nice but don't play with my kindness and my neurological problms of asperger and epilepsy. I can accept many things, I have accepted that my father drunk a lot and was angry when he drunk,I have lost my father, I have lost my enterprize, I have lost my girlfriend, I have been in the coma, I have suffer all my lifes,My mother is very bad, I take meds and I have headaches all days,I have been in the street all my young life due to home probles.I have continued in the best schools of my region, I have lostmy father when I was at university, I have been in, the coma, the year after when I was also at university. I have lost others persons of my family.Since 8 years I speak about my theory,I have probelms in belgium, indeed people wants take our houses.....and this and thaty.I am strong in my head and frankly I am nice , be sure, too much nice says my friends and familly.But I have my limits, be sure, to a big probelm, a big solution.

Transform a ball in sphere, turn a sphere in a ball,make confusions about the words, I will accept and I will smile to the copycats and their taste of power.I will tell all the truth everywhere.

This world is sick due to these comportments, I beleive that the world merits better than this reality.

But it is just a suggestion.

If these maths and physics are correct, me I am the queen of england.:)

I can understand that in the past several years ago when I knew FQXi,I have been parano after In have shared my theory in transparence. I can understand that I am direct and frank, so probably I have insulted people.But it is just due to my parano.I am sorry if I have touched several people, it was not my aim. I make efforts but I can stop to think like this. My parano does not help me. It is logic when people causes you many probelms in belgium. I had trust in people. But frankly when you are too nice, people eats you. It is bizare in fact. This world is bizare frankly.

You know for me FQXi was very important. I have just the impression that I am not respected. Probably due to my arrogance and this exagerated parano. I am trying to evolve and to be more focus on my economical situation.But it is not easy.I have difficulties to adapt me.In all case I must find a job quickly.It is the life.

I was here on FQXi to share my theory of spherization, these quantum spheres or balls which turn and imply mass and evolution.....and all that considering the cosmological spheres and all in 3D and all inside a beautiful 3D sphere in evolution with a beautiful main central sphere. The 3D is so important,this 3D is very very important for the calculations of proportions.The rotations are proprotional.

If I want calculate the mass of the H for example, I utilise the 3D, if I fractalize this H, it will give a finite serie giving a specific entanglement of spheres. The central sphere is the most important volume.The serie towards our smaller volumes is specific begining from the number 1 the central sphere.So this H is a specific number.

If I take the CH4 now for example, 1 C for 4 H, so we can so insert the 4 series around the serie of the C. Now the real ask is this one,

C AND H have the same serie or have a different serie of uniqueness. If the serie is the same, so you have the universal rule of rotations spinals and orbitals of spherical volumes by synchro and sortings. The fermions and the bosons are easily differenciated by a simple different sense of rotation at 180 degrees.The 4 interactions are unified !

mcosV=constant.

That proves that the mass evolves because it possesses an intrinsic code of evolution, so the mass is what it is because it is like that !

I am confused. You think that all we do is copy each other. In contrast, I think that most of the physics community does not take me seriously - my ideas are too radical and too far out of the mainstream. And then Joy and I argue back and forth over something that we more-or-less agree on, like 3-spheres. For that matter, you and Joy are both considering rotations in 3-D. It is funny how we can be so close in our approaches, and yet so far apart.

Please do not compare me to all of USA. Yes - I am an American, born and mostly raised in Florida, but I have virtually no control over what governments and big businesses choose to do - just like you have virtually no control over Belgium, just like the northern European countries have virtually no control over the way that the southern European countries are ruining the value of the Euro.

It is all I can do somedays to hold myself, my family, my family business, and the 24 people that we employ together. Please do not attribute the responsibility of 300 million or 7 billion people to just plain me - I am clearly insufficient - even with the help of all of my friends.

Nor do I have any control over China. I have never even visited that great country - perhaps someday!

Is Joy American? I know that some of his education was in England and America, but I thought that he works at the Perimeter Institute in Canada.

Sorry Ray if I had touched you. I make efforts to be less parano. I have nothing against USA Ray, I love your country, I have always dreamed to be in an university at New York or In California.But unfortunaly the life has chosen a other direction. I love USA Ray but the hour is serious. I spoke generally in fact and not about you, sorry for the confusions, I have sometimes difficulties to explain the things. I respect the fact that you have a enterprize and employments. It is well in fact. But frankly Ray have you seen how the world goes...it is very serious and you as me as all rational people understand that the world must be harmonized quickly.It lacks funds Ray, the economy must be rethought, monney must be inserted. The big powers on Earth, so USA, Europa,China,East,Brasil,India,Africa, must rethink the global economical system quickly !!! If people are nervous everywhere, there are reasons Ray. The world must change for the well of all. It is possible if these countries,these important governments act together with a new system of equilibrium. If not it will be a catastrophe Ray.

ps have you seen my country,yesterday, AA instead of a AA+ for my country in economy like the slovania.We are without government since more than 540 days...incredible no ? it is my country and its surealism.Oh my god.

HOW THE PEOPLE CAN BE WELL AND CREATIVE AND IN PROSPERITY IF THE WORLD IS LIKE THAT.IF ALREADY THE MOST DEVELOPPED COUNTRIES CAN NOT TO SUCCESS. There are many probelms Ray and many parameters to harmonize. The USA has a responsability.If the capitals are a tools, so they must be utilized with rationality and universlity also.

Aha, "rotations"! As you are aware, I am ready to spring on anything that has change in it. Because any given existent state does not have change. That only occurs as difference manifested in a sequence of existent states. Somewhere in this modelling, I am sure that change (incorrectly known as time)has been incorporated, then it is timed. Whereas we can only have change from state to state, the frequency of which can be timed. Apart from which, as Steve said in another exchange, time, especially if understood, is irreversible. So if one has a model that allows that, then it is not conforming to reality. In effect, the model is 'too perfect'. Reality is something, it has 'imperfections', it is not a metaphyical concept.

The speed of sound RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER does vary with the speed of the observer. According to Newton's emission theory of light, Maxwell's theory, sane scientists in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER does vary with the speed of the observer as well. Clever Einsteinians know that the Doppler effect (moving observer, stationary source) can have no other explanation so they left Einsteiniana's sinking ship a couple of years ago. Up until recently silly Einsteinians could see no reason why the money-spinner should be abandoned but the OPERA experiment convinced them that they should leave too:

I wrote "speed of sound re air" as to avoid this mistake. Engineers do never refer the speed of a wave to something else than the medium in which the wave propagates. Just a play with poorly plagiarized hypotheses by Lorentz and Poincaré led to the self-deceptive and unfortunately widespread idea that no medium is required in case of light an the velocity refers instead to the observer.

This idea was welcome because experiments by Michelson and Morley did not find the so called ether wind. And it was a starting point for abundant mathematical self-satisfaction on questionable fundamentals.

The constant speed of air re air does definitely not depend on any observer. Einstein's postulate of a constant velocity of light corresponds to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic waves. It would be correct re an ether. I do not see Shtyrkov's reasoning objectable.

"Does the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER vary with the speed of the obserber?"

is always legitimate and fully compatible with the assumption that, relative to a medium, the speed of light is constant and independent of both source and observer. The answers:

Newton's emission theory: Yes

Maxwell's ether theory: Yes

Special relativity: No

Common sense: Yes:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

Shtyrkov did show: "light speed constancy wrt to the observer [is] to be revised".

What I called unbelievable is the obvious fact that a perhaps professional British physicist transferred the believe in the speed constancy of light with respect to the observer as introduced by Einstein, i.e. not wrt the medium on ANY WAVE. This can easily be demonstrated being wrong, e.g. with sound waves.

You quoted Forshaw and Smith having written: "for a wave travelling through a medium the speed is indeed independent of the motion of the source but it certainly depends upon the motion of the observer."

At least in engineering the speed of a sound wave is always understood relative to the medium, never relative to an observer.

"the source of all of the weird and wonderful physics". Correct science is not weird and horror mistakes are not wonderful.

1 When are you going to understand the principle of reference points? One can only have one reference point, which one being irrelevant, from which all speeds (or any relative attribute) is judged. So it could be the observer, but everything else would have to be calibrated wrt observer. The differences remain the same.

2 When are you going to understand SR? In SR, light is constant because only special conditions obtain (the clue is in the title). That is, there is no gravitational force. In the real world, ie GR, things are different.

3 When are you going to understand the importance of changing velocity? That, according to Einstein, et al, indicates that a force (ie gravity) is being applied, which whilst causing a change in velocity, also (supposedly) causes a change in dimension. In other words, it is not velocity, per se, that just provides a ‘warning signal’ that dimension alteration is happening. And one cannot compare bus with squashed/ elongated bus, without allowing for that (assuming it does actually happen, which is a completely different issue). Leaving this factor aside, apparent changes in frequency when velocity is changing, are exactly that, apparent. They are optical and sound illusions.

1 You are voting for any reference point. This would include the emitter too. Moreover it is common practice for good reasons to refer the speed of a wave front to the medium in which it propagates.

Do you believe it is justified to use a reference point in the past and another one in the future? I consider this a basic mistake.

2 The conditions you mentioned are fulfilled in case the distance between two bodies is getting smaller and likewise in case it gets larger. Already this has paradoxical implications in SR, in contrast to the correct (non-relativistic) Doppler effect.

3 Given the two mentioned above bodies will arrive at the same position (zero distance). Do their velocities suddenly change there?

Why do you still write length alteration instead using the word length contraction? Do you feel in position to improve SR?

There are definitely much more objections to rise. I am sure, Pentcho could add at least equally compelling ones.

One must be able to use any reference point from which to assess a relative attribute (which includes movement). Some are just more practical than others. It is not about in the "past" and the "future". That potential practical problem is eliminated if one does timing correctly and differentiates reality and its representation. In other words, the "basic mistake" is not in the selection, per se (though some may be impractical), but in doing the timing incorrectly.

SR is just a fixed world with fixed shape bodies and straight lines. The Doppler effect in this world is an aural and visual illusion.

As explained before, I write of length alteration because I presume it must happen both way (ie contraction and elongation). Einstein only mentions clocks going slower AND faster once. Poincare (I think)& Lorentz refer to the direction vis a vis the spin of the earth. In other words there is the other direction. And something cannot be subject to acceleration only (which means the body is contracting). That is, it get faster, then returns to its 'natural' state (size), then it gets faster again & so on. There must be the opposite. The whole point is that they were 'not happy' with this concept. It was a plausibility argument, they had no clue as to how the process worked. So there was a tendency to avoid it, and discuss the theory in terms of consequences, particularly timing effects. Having said all that, I then have to add my usual caveat: but whether this concept (length alteration) was correct or not is another matter.

As said previously, I do not know. I do not have the capability to assess whether in reality this or that was actually correct. This requires an understanding of light, ether, etc, etc, which I do not have. In this context what I do comment on is what these people said (not whether it was correct or not), and a certain amount of logic about reference points, etc, which helps in properly assessing whether they were right or not. This is the same as the arguments over the maths/model. As I said from the outset, I do not have the capability to question that, per se, either, but it must represent something and that is what I question.

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity."

The king from The Little Prince is just as powerful as Divine Albert but, unlike Divine Albert, he always gives reasonable orders:

http://www.winglin.net/fanfic/littleprince/chapter_10.shtml

"Sire--over what do you rule?"

"Over everything," said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

"Over everything?"

The king made a gesture, which took in his planet, the other planets, and all the stars.

"Over all that?" asked the little prince.

"Over all that," the king answered.

For his rule was not only absolute: it was also universal.

....................................

"I should like to see a sunset...Do me that kindness...Order the sun to set..."

"If I ordered a general to fly from one flower to another like a butterfly, or to write a tragic drama, or to change himself into a sea bird, and if the general did not carry out the order that he had received, which one of us would be in the wrong?" the king demanded. "The general, or myself?"

"You," said the little prince firmly.

"Exactly. One must require from each one the duty which each one can perform," the king went on. "Accepted authority rests first of all on reason. If you ordered your people to go and throw themselves into the sea, they would rise up in revolution. I have the right to require obedience because my orders are reasonable."

The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. This statement contradicts special relativity but is compatible with both Newton's emission theory of light and the ether theory:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf

Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation, Stephan J. G. Gift: "Specifically we show that the well-established Doppler Shift or frequency change of electromagnetic radiation that occurs for a moving observer is accompanied by a change in wave or light speed relative to the moving observer and that this wave or light speed change (for low-speed observer movement) accords with classical velocity composition."

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653092

The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection, Olivier Darrigol: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities."

“The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. This statement contradicts special relativity”.

Incorrect. SR presumes only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion. There is no changing velocity. Using a different observer at a different rate of uniform motion to calibrate the speed of light would result in a difference, obviously. But it is not the speed of light that is altering, it’s the simple fact that one has used two different reference points. And the two are not directly comparable, because they are different. In order to compare them, one needs another reference point that encompasses both, ie references both to a new reference point.

Zombie education in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world (Brian Cox seems to be regarded as the ideal product of this type of education):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY2R2d6AVPM

"What is redshift? And what is this Doppler effect? What does this tell us about the universe? Quite a lot actually. Enter the realms of Astrophysics as we look at the evidence for an expanding universe and learn how it all began! Future Astronomers start here! In a few years, you could be the next Brian Cox!"

Einsteinians,

This is not funny. The motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength and yet the observer measures a frequency shift as he changes his speed. Why? Does the speed of the waves (relative to the observer) vary with the speed of the observer? If yes, what are the consequences for Divine Albert's Divine Theory? If you were able to explain the problem to children, there would be no next Brian Cox.

Gravity and inertia fix intelligible and fundamental distance in/of space consistent with force/energy ultimately. Both have to be at half strength/force in a fundamental unification of physics. This would make space equally (and both) invisible and visible in conjunction with the fundamental demonstation of instantaneity and quantum gravity.

At least, they are perhaps not yet forced to explain why a found galaxy is older than the Big Bang. Lets wait for results with sub-infrared frequencies. Admittedly tera Hertz images do perhaps not have the required resolution.

I suspect Hoyle, Arp, the Burbidges, etc. will be vindicated in our lifetimes.

Eckard,

These galaxies are redshifted off the visible spectrum and seem otherwise normal. The degree of redshift hasn't been completely calculated yet, so it will be interesting to see how they measure up. If redshift is an optical effect, then we can expect to keep finding such galaxies hiding in the background radiation and eventually realize that black body background radiation is itself the residual light of galaxies which has completely fallen off the visible spectrum. The model doesn't have to be twisted to extremes, because it predicts them.

"The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center."

"Light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field" is a euphemism. In fact, general relativity predicts that light will lose SPEED. The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential, phi, either in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light or in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) given by general relativity:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

If that was the only cause, all galaxies would be equally redshifted. The problem is explaining why there is redshift proportional to intergalactic distances. One observation I would make is that when we treat photons as actual particles, it does require some proportionally expanding distance to create this effect.

On the other hand, if light is a continuous field, expanding out from its source, the further the radius, the greater the volume of space this light must fill and the weaker it becomes. So when we detect that light with a detector made of atomic structure, then the photon is a quanta required to "pop" the electrons in one of those atoms to a higher energy. This then is a sampling of that entire bubble of light.

One way to test this theory, if cosmology wanted to, would be to use two telescopes as far apart as possible and sample the light from the same source, at the exact same time and see if it is "entangled."

If the light travels as distinct particles, then any two photons have been separated since they left the source, millions to billions of years ago and likely came from completely different stars in the same galaxy. On the other hand, if light is the medium and particles and waves are simply manifestations of its measurement, then the light from that distant galaxy would have become entangled in its passage and we should be able to compare these two samples and see how closely they resemble each other.

And in Einstein Foundations of GR 1916, sections 21 & 22, you can find a set of equations, one of which, number 74, calculates the curvature effect on a ray of light from the gravitational force.

Paul

PS: yes John, one wonders just what precisely is 'left' after that much travelling, however that occurs. Apart from anything else, what we do receive may have, of itself, been altered because it has been affected by different exansion rates during its travels.

Yes, light does expand, to fill volume, the greater the radius from its source. The issue is to what is the nature of light, because if it is point particles, it can't expand.

In the Digital vs. Analog contest, I offered an analogy of light as existing continuously vs. being measured discretely, using dripping water:

"A possible analogy would be a running faucet. When it is fully open, the water runs in a

constant stream and as we start to close it, the stream is reduced and becomes smaller

in diameter. Eventually we reach the point there isn’t enough water to maintain the

stream and the faucet is just dripping water. Since it is the surface tension of water, vs.

the force of gravity that determines the size of water droplets, these drops remain the

same size and diameter, as we continue to tighten the faucet, but the reduction in the

ﬂow rate causes the time between each drip to grow longer. If we were to construct a

wave pattern from this process, it would get progressively longer."

So it is that only discrete quanta of light can be detected requires more time for these quanta to build up. Our current theory supposes light can only exist as these irreducible units, so the reason the wave pattern is stretched is like saying the effect of the drips getting further apart is because the faucet is moving away, thus there is more space between each drip.

Even if you require light to exist as fundamental quanta, that doesn't mean they can't be stretched. The problem is assuming they must be inelastic point particles.

At the risk of making a blindingly obvious statement, it would help everybody if light was understood, both in terms of photons and in terms of 'cpaturing/conveying' what we then convert to an image.

I did ask the following (in Topic: Are we getting closer):

When reference is made to a wave, is it:

a) 'something' which, of itself, travels in a wave like motion, or

b) a chain reaction whereby 'some signature' is 'conveyed' along the chain, thereby giving the appearance of 'something' travelling, by virtue of a change in the 'somethings' that comprise the chain, which occurs in a wave like motion?

Which is it?

Either way one can still discern the discrete existent state that must exist. Just that, in the latter, it is the state of any given 'particle' within the chain, as opposed to the particular circumstance of (what we deem to be)the 'same particle', at a point in time.

When we measure light, the effects we detect, spectrum, wave, particle, heat, etc. are an interaction between the light and the measuring device. I'm just saying that we should triangulate this information to define the substance of light, not just pick one, particle, as the true nature and decide another, wave, as just a statistical artifact.

Here is an interview with someone with hands on experience and his views on understanding quantum nature.

"It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers, published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles. This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers, effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect) as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler effect)."

Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt, p. 33: "A relativistic optics of moving bodies: a corpuscle of light is subject to Galilean kinematics, and thus to its principle of relativity as well as to the corresponding theorem of the addition of velocities. The velocity of a light corpuscle is the sum of the velocity of its source, of its emission velocity, and of the velocity of its observer; as a consequence it cannot be constant. Such an optics of moving bodies has quite the same structure as Einstein's special relativity - the Galileo transformations having of course to be replaced by Lorentz transformations."

Jean Eisenstaedt,

"The same structure as Einstein's special relativity" camouflage will not work in the long run. But it could initially mask the fraudulent nature of Einsteiniana - e.g. "We were not lying, we were just misled by the fact that, even though false, special relativity is equivalent to the emission theory". Still I think the camouflage is too naïve - Einsteinians should just put ashes on their heads and disappear in some wormhole.

Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt, p. 34: "Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow thinking in Newtonian terms."

Jean Eisenstaedt,

Which "taken-for-granted fact" did not allow thinking in arithmetic terms in Big Brother's world:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

That the velocity of light relative to the observer cannot be constant is just as obvious as 2+2=4:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. (...) By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. (...) We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. (...) Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency

f' = f(1 + v/c) = f(1 + gh/c^2)

On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity bend light, but changes its frequency as well."

This means that, in the earth frame (or in an equivalent accelerating frame, in the absence of a gravitational field), the frequency shift is due to a shift in the speed of light:

c' = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)

in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light. Of course, a detailed analysis would show why the frequency shift cannot be due to gravitational time dilation.

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

The fact that "light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects" has an important implication. Let us consider two initially stationary observers, A and B, at some distance apart in an inertial system. A emits a flash of light towards B just as B starts accelerating towards A so that, when B and the flash meet, B has a speed v relative to the original inertial system. If "light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects", then B measures the speed of the flash to be c'=c+v. In other words, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

The fact that the speed of light (relative to the observer/receiver) varies with the speed of the observer/receiver is indispensable for deriving the gravitational redshift so Einsteinians are forced to use it, implicitly of course. The boldest among them believe that the camouflage ("protective belt" in Imre Lakatos' terminology) is so perfect that an explicit hint would do no harm:

David Morin p. 3: "However, the light takes a finite time to reach the receiver, and by then the receiver will be moving. We therefore cannot ignore the motion of the rocket when dealing with the receiver. The time it takes the light to reach the receiver is h/c, at which point the receiver has a speed of v=g(h/c).(...) The receiver and this next pulse then travel toward each other at relative speed c+v..."

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html

"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

The motion of the observer clearly cannot alter the wavelength of the light wave (and of any other wave). Accordingly, since the frequency does vary with the speed of the observer, the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)

tells us that the speed of ANY wave (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer.

Not so, say practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana. Forget the wavelength, it does not exist per se, think of the "observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus" which always measures the correct wavelength so that believers can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave. What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light wave."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Wavelength IS found to change, the proposition you suggest is 'obvious' only when employing simplistic notions. It is not falsified in all cases. Consider this;

An observer is in a medium of gas, (at close to index n=1). We may perhaps assume he's on a small planet with a thick atmosphere. An em 'signal' is sent, say from another planets moon or a spacecraft, at c, at a frequency (time gaps) giving an emitted wavelength of 10m. If the observers planet is moving towards the source, then when the signal enters the gaseous medium the measured wavelength in the frame of the planet will be reduced. The frequency will also be found to have consumately increased.

If you research optical science you will find that this is precisely what is found, though few realise the astronomical implications.

As 'c = f x lambda' is always a constant, then of course maintaining c (or c/n) within a moving medium (planet), it is clear that if f changes then wavelength lambda must also change. Of course this was beyond Einstein 100 years ago, but still seems beyond humanity now. Orwell knew why. Do you?

As the observer starts moving towards the light source, the frequency he measures increases and if his motion does not alter the wavelength, then the speed of the light wave (relative to him) increases, goodbye Einstein etc. The problem is taboo in Einsteiniana but still there are two exceptions:

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Tom Roberts: "NOTHING that is intrinsic to the light wave "changes". But then, wavelength is NOT an intrinsic property of a light wave. What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave, and this causes differently moving observers to MEASURE different wavelengths for the same light wave."

Let us assume that Tom Roberts' statement:

"What does change with the observer's velocity is the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave"

is correct. Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "...we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary. This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer. In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-shifted."

"In 1960, GR passed its first big test in a lab, here on Earth; the Pound-Rebka experiment. And over the nine decades since its publication, GR has passed test after test after test, always with flying colors."

The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency varies with the gravitational potential, phi, in accordance with the equation:

Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several well-founded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that."

If you still have hesitations, look at what Einsteiniana's priests have been up to lately:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/

Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt: "It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers, published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles. This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers, effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect) as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler effect). (...) Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow thinking in Newtonian terms."

Q; "Then we consider a stationary observer and a moving source of light. As the light source starts moving towards the observer, the frequency the observer measures increases. Does "the RELATIONSHIP between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave" change again? If yes, what triggers this change?

No, but the wavelength is still changed from that first emitted.

This is because; If the observer is 'at rest,' then he must be at rest wrt something that is in a different frame to the emitter.

If he is on a planet, say Earth, he is at rest wrt the ionosphere, or the ECRF. Light approaches at c wrt the sun, then hits the ionosphere (Medium) and interacts so when moving through the atmosphere (n=1.0003) does so at c wrt Earth.

In fact if the emitter was moving elsewhere within the galaxy, the wavelength and frequency would have already changed once when moving through the ion shock of the emitter, changing to c wrt the galaxy.

When the implications are considered you should find that this is so simple that, in the immortal words of 'Deep Thought'; "You really ARE not going to like it! Or perhaps you may. It is the discrete field model (DFM), and very Occam.

When the observer moves; Consider all observers wavelength measuring apparatus, which is always preceded by a lens, whether of glass (refractive index n=1.55) or an eyeball (n=1.38). The wavelength is shortened on frame transition along with the frequency change, also maintaining local c. Precisely the 'Local Reality' that Einstein was after, but not by using the simultaneity assumption of SR.

I hope you may accept this as a Christmas present, to make all the fog lift.

The wavelength is not changed from that first emitted. The measurement/ perception of each subsequent wavelength changes. Because the time delay between emission and reception is altering as the distance between emitter and observer (measuring apparatus) alters. The observer is not at rest wrt emitter.

It is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength of sound waves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5uM4V6uWM&feature=related

"Doppler Effect Asymmetry"

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it would be SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength of light waves as well. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it is SELF-EVIDENT that the motion of the observer DOES alter something (it could be the wavelength or "the relationship between the observer's wavelength-measuring apparatus and the light wave" or whatever) so that the speed of light (relative to the observer) can remain unchanged and Einsteiniana's bellicose zombies can fiercely sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" while persecuting heretics.

Where something 'self evident' relies on assumption, but experiment proves something different, the scientific response is to test the assumption. Others, (like both confirmed relativists AND fanatical dissidents), are too wedded to their beliefs to do this, in which case no weight of contrary evidence will change their minds. Consider; 'Both f and lambda change on frame...

Where something 'self evident' relies on assumption, but experiment proves something different, the scientific response is to test the assumption. Others, (like both confirmed relativists AND fanatical dissidents), are too wedded to their beliefs to do this, in which case no weight of contrary evidence will change their minds. Consider; 'Both f and lambda change on frame transformation'.

Paul

Again, with little knowledge of astrophysics or research of optical science you again assume the role of an oracle with; "The wavelength is not changed from that first emitted."!!

Now: Imagine yourself a dweller in a large homogeneous cloud of dense gas moving through space. You cannot leave this cloud of gas, but happily life your life within in. It has a refractive index of say n=1.0003 (as air) and light moves through it at c.

The cloud is orbiting rapidly around something, on an orbit alternately approaching then retreating from another light source, at rest in the space through which the cloud is moving. Light is emitted from that source at long wavelength, say 300km, giving a frequency of 1/1000th of a second, or 1000 wave 'peaks'/second.

Take the case of the cloud moving towards the source, say at 100,000km/sec so any effect is easily noticeable. As each wave peak arrives at the medium of the cloud, it is slowed, to c/n wrt the cloud. So it is slowed in total by 100,000km/sec x 1.0003 = 100,030km/sec. to do c/n in and with respect to the cloud. (equivalent to what we find with radio signals etc.).

Now, each wave peak arrives BEFORE the next, so is slowed down EARLIER that the next, so the physical distance between peaks is reduced. Ergo, to you dwelling in the cloud, the wavelength is less that the wavelength originally emitted (i.e. as measured by an observer in the frame of the emitter). Measured frequency (ie. the rate the peaks pass the observer) ALSO changes! The wavelength (Lambda) should reduce by 1/3, thus, as they pass the new observer at almost c, the frequency (f) should increase by almost 1/3 (divide by n).

You, living in the cloud, should therefore always find light moving locally at c/n.

Now; consider carefully; as c = f Lambda is a constant, then to maintain c locally, if either f or lambda changes the other must also change, as f is time dependant. This IS what is found in optical science and astrophysics (including in spectroscopy), and is paradox free. It is however NOT as this would suggest is incorrectly 'assumed' by most 'theoretical physicists', which is paradox riddled.

I'd suggest probably only a genius could rationalise all that at one reading. Too much Christmas spirit would be a problem! All logical falsification invited.

The point I had tried to make earlier but probably failed, is that if the observer at rest in the original emitters frame could 'see' the light signal and also looked into the ('moving' in his case) cloud to see the effect on the signal of entering the cloud, he would see the wavelengths closed up (blue shift) but, due to the motion of the cloud past him, it's APPARENT frequency ('passing' him) would be unchanged, and apparent speed (wrt him) would be c - v.

This is precisely like standing on an embankment and observing an arrow fired within a train carriage. It's speed wrt you is only APPARENT, as it depends on train speed. It is a different speed to the observer in the train. Arrows fired out of the front of a moving train at a stationary target would however be closer together on arrival than when fired, as well as arriving more frequently (to also obey the conservation law).

Best wishes

Peter

(PS; to dispell any doubt, remember that fibre optic signals do the same speed wrt the cable whatever the 'speed' any train or plane they are).

When it comes to rigorous deduction, even relativists (implicitly) admit that the motion of the observer cannot alter the wavelength of the light wave:

http://members.home.nl/fg.marcelis/reldop.pdf

The observer O receives a light wave from the source S. The wavelength of the emitted wave is Ls. (...) Let Ts be the time in which one wavelength is emitted as measured by a clock that is moving along with S. (...) Now let's suppose that the source is at rest and the observer is moving with velocity v in the direction of the source. Let To be the time in which the observer passes one wavelength, as measured by a clock that is moving along with the observer. In the time To the observer travels a distance v*To to the left and the light wave travels a distance Ls-v*To to the right. The light's distance is also equal to c*To.

So Ls - v*To = c*To.

Or c*Ts = c*To + v*To.

The observed period in case of a moving observer is

To = Ts(c/(c+v))

__________________________________________

[end of quotation]

The last result, combined with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of the light wave)/(wavelength)

entails that the observer measures the frequency to be Fo=Fs(1+v/c) and the speed of the light wave to be c'=c+v.

Again, rigorous relativistic analysis implies that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

By taking into account the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

one concludes that the speed of light (relative to the observer) shifts from c to c+v.

Relying on assumptions is where it went wrong in the first place. You're making the same error as Einstein. The paradigm will never be overcome until the specific error is falsifiably identified, which it cannot ever be when making the same mistake with assumptions. Your approach is therefore counter productive.

I can quote many authorities contrary to the erroneous ones you quote, but proper specialist research papers like http://europa.agu.org/?uri=/journals/rs/RS012i002p00337.xml&view=article, and 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.153902 http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v100/i15/e153902 not just opinions.

"It may also be said that the velocity of the wave remains constant whereas wavelength changes; hence frequency also changes."

and in; http://www.quantumrealism.net/uploads/ExtinctionShiftPrinciple_An_Introduction_20Oct2006_1_.pdf (A falsifiably dynamic equivalent to the DFM)

"The extinguished primary wave is replaced by a secondary wave that is re-emitted by its secondary source with an extinction shifted wavelength."

Einstein assumed that an observers observation was not immediately preceded by a medium and thus a consummate change of propagation speed. This was his mistake. Instrument lens n=1.55, eye lens n=1.38. Light is always found at c by a moving observer because, although 'arriving' at c+v, it is converted to c the moment it interacts, and before it can be measured and analysed.

Only George Orwell's Crimestop is preventing dissidents seeing the true and simple solution to overturning the current false paradigm, because they too rely on assumption.

Reality is FUNDAMENTALLY both potential and actual in keeping with instantaneity. Dreams are potential and actual in keeping with fundamental instantaneity. (Dreams clearly include bodily experience.) YOU experience YOUR body and occupy and experience your space. The lying body while dreaming is in potential form relative to the dreamer while dreaming. The other observers necessarily experience this lying body/bodily experience (that THEY experience/see) differently or distinctly, and yet as potential AND actual. Importantly, the return to the waking bodily experience (from the dream) is also instantaneous.

This is a revolution in physical understanding.

Dreams are equally, and BOTH, invisible and visible. Accordingly, they are visible to the dreamer having the dream vision; and yet dreams are invisible to others.

When the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, both relativists and antirelativists admit that, for ANY wave, the frequency shift he measures obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), where f and c are, respectively, the frequency and the speed of the wave the stationary observer measures. The only sane scenario allowing a rigorous derivation of the equation, for ANY wave, is:...

When the observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, both relativists and antirelativists admit that, for ANY wave, the frequency shift he measures obeys the equation f'=f(1+v/c), where f and c are, respectively, the frequency and the speed of the wave the stationary observer measures. The only sane scenario allowing a rigorous derivation of the equation, for ANY wave, is:

"The motion of the observer cannot change the wavelength; the increased frequency is due to an increased speed of the wave relative to the observer":

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. (...) The formula for the frequency that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer; the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be: f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the speed of the wave."

Einsteiniana's priests (implicitly) admit that the above scenario is the only sane one for e.g. sound or water waves but automatically shift to insanity when it comes to light waves:

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Still Einsteiniana's priests are unable to derive the equation f'=f(1+v/c) based on their schizophrenic wavelength-varies-with-speed-of-observer scenario so silence is their usual reaction - John Norton's revelation is perhaps the only one on Internet. However Einsteiniana's zombies are not silent and fiercely teach the wavelength-varies-with-speed-of-observer wisdom all over the world.

Note again that scientists have no other way to derive the correct formula for the Doppler frequency shift (moving observer), F'=F(1+V/c), than to admit that the motion of the observer CANNOT alter the wavelength and that the velocity of the wave (relative to the observer) VARIES with the velocity of the observer:

p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

On the next page Cox and Forshaw explain that the gravitational time dilation is responsible for the frequency shift. That is, clocks at the bottom of the laboratory run slower so that more wavecrests hit the receiver in a unit time. This is silly camouflage of course - any sane person would at least suspect that, since light's "energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping", the effect can only be due to acceleration. That is, it is the speed of light that "should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping". Yet this is Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world - the more idiotic the camouflage, the more efficient.

The gravitational-time-dilation interpretation of the frequency shift has an implication that clever Einsteinians know about: the emitter and the receiver measure the same wavelength! That is, the camouflage is unable to twist the fact that the wavelength does not vary with the gravitational potential. Silly Einsteinians do not know and do not care about this implication and fiercely teach that the frequency and the wavelength vary while the speed of light gloriously remains constant. Of all clever Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why silly Einsteinians should teach otherwise.

If you prefer to base your theories on beliefs rather than empiricism it is your choice, but you should not then be surprised when you are ignored by both relativists and serious scientists alike.

Wavelength change with receiver motion disproves Einstein's Special Relativity, it does not support it. In fact what it demonstrates is that SR was never required in the fist place.

With the whole of the optical sciences proving every day that an observer is always in a local medium (or his lenses represents a local medium themselves), then you will always be laughed at as foolish, and 'Einstenia' will remain the flawed ruling paradox forever.

Congratulations Pentcho. This is what you are achieving by eschewing science and being as belief led as they.

This does not disprove SR as such, because SR involves no changing motion. Einstein said so.

Your comment about the 'purpose' of SR is correct. Maybe in the material available there is a clue, but why he later designated a set of unreal (special) circumstances as being SR (which is not all that was written in 1905), which serves no purpose, seems peculiar.

The reason is the very reason for the derivation of GR. It soon became clear that his construction for SR could not accommodate the condition of acceleration required for the 'inertial frame transformation' which 'SR' was originally supposed to be all about. In this event the transformation itself (acceleration) was removed from SR, which was left with only relative 'inertial' (non accelerative) motion to deal with. Yet is still used the Lorentz transformation!! (which is directly equivalent to accelerating between states of motion).

This does of course 'involve' changing motion, but of course can only cope with it via a mathematical formula (originally Fresnels, derived 80 years before for something else) and, as you say, it effectively ended up serving no purpose, although you will be consigned to the crank (in)sanitorium for pointing this out.

It does indeed 'seem peculiar', but he was forced into it, and only let go of the 'ether' frame temporarily when he was forced to, but ended up, just like even Dirac, agreeing that it was logically undeniable.

I did not say that the POSTULATES of SR are disproved, in fact they are proven. In this I agree with you, but the dynamic of local background frames does disproves the rest of SR and the need for it in the first place, or rather combines the remains of it, with the postulates, into a combined GR based unified field theory. This is then unified with QM because it is the quantum mechanism of absorption and atomic scattering which physically produces those local background frames. The 'Local Reality' Einstein sought is thereby achieved. (That is the DFM, and also Dowdyes 're-emission' thesis in a nutshell).

Unfortunately it is initially dynamically complex to understand and the shortcomings of maths wrt motion mean it is unable to find it alone. Also with most dissidents as 'belief' based as ardent relativists it will not even be studied.

Perhaps it's a good thing. Do you believe progress can sometimes itself bring too much discord?

I do not know, but if I get excited enough about the idea, I might try and find out, ie when was SR as a term first mentioned, and why. I am not convinced by your interpretation, because SR did not exist pre-GR. You are assuming that, at least more or less, SR = 1905, when you say: “It soon became clear that his construction for SR could not accommodate the condition of acceleration”. There was no SR, just 1905. Which had length alteration, changing velocity, assumptions about light, mathematics which assumed fixedness, etc.

My ‘reading of the runes’ is that he then fully realised his theory, and instead of just writing: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies: Version 2, he wrote GR and then contrasted that with an unreal set of ‘special’ circumstances which was labelled SR (but was not the whole of 1905) to rationalise some of what he had written about previously. Irrespective of all this, whether what he actually said is either logically, or quantitatively, correct, is an entirely different matter.

In respect of “Yet is still used the Lorentz transformation!!”. His response was: “For the transition from one Galileian system to another, which is moving uniformly with reference to the first, the equations of the Lorentz transformation are valid. These last form the basis for the derivation of deductions from the special theory of relativity, and in themselves, they are nothing more than the expression of the universal validity of the law of transmission of light for all Galileian systems of reference”. Section 26 Sr & GR 1916.

The crux of this is to ignore when he said whatever he said. And to ‘re-assemble’ it on the basis of his own definition as to what constitutes SR & GR. After all, he is really clear about that.

Peter, progress is change. And in general, especially if there is a lot of it, or it is radical, humans have a problem with that. Because whether they realise it or not, what they currently know acquires something of a belief status. Along with more practical considerations around, what has been previously said, ego, job, money, etc. Change represents threats to all/any of these, and while they may expouse the politically correct stance, fundamentally, survival instincts kick in.

Whatever YOU wish to call his first theory and whenever he later (no secret!) coined the term 'the Special Theory of Relativity', it is now know and referred to as SR so, again only confusion would arise by trying to change that, so I'm afraid I must continue to refer to SR. As you then say; "The crux of this is to ignore when he said whatever he said." so I fail to see the point of your comment on the name, arising only from misinterpretation of my use of SR as having some other meaning! You'll note I put 'SR' in inverted commas, which should have helped stop you diverging from the point. Yes of course the point is how 'correct' it was, my point precisely. But also, he well knew it was not correct or complete. The point is can we now find precisely the incorrect assumption and how to correct it.

The assumption that space does NOT contain the particles we now know it does, (therefore a 'medium), and that light does NOT change speed to the local c on encountering moving fields of these particles (i.e. the ECRF of our ionosphere) was used for SR.

Testing the assumption that what we now find is correct, so Einstein's instinct (small space s in motion within in larger space S etc.) was correct rather than the SR assumption of NO background frame, then we find it all works, including the SR postulates if not the whole simultneity confusion. Job done.

But of course, as you say, we are belief ridden and scared of change. A favourite saying of mine is "The only thing certain in life is change (apart from death and nurses." Unfortunately the only area that seems to be untrue is in academic science, the very area that should define change. Though you yourself have proved that shifting peoples view to get them to them see things from other directions can be next to impossible. Do check out this article; http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5532250/Skeptical%20Intelligencer%202011.pdf

As said in another post, his assumption: " But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it", may well be wrong. That presumption was maintained in GR, wasn't it? We just had the 'extra' effect of light rays curving due to gravity.

Einstein clearly states what constitutes SR, that is all I am saying. It is not a case of what I want to call this or that.

I have already commented on what Einstein was saying, ie he was talking of bodies, space being the consequence, and have spoken on too many occasions about refrence points/frames.

I agree "The idea of motion may not be applied to it" is wrong, because that conception was only forced onto him by the assumption that any motion (or 'immobility' as he initially termed it), or the 'preferred background frame' would have to be 'absolute.'

Now we recognise that we can only actually 'see' light moving through a medium not through a vacuum, and that it always moves at c wrt that local medium, we are no longer hampered by that incorrect assumption that c could only then be one 'absolute' speed wrt the centre of the universe.

I like your; "...he was talking of bodies, space being the consequence." if not entirely accurate in all cases. What I have been trying to say is that when considered with his 1952 conceptualisation; "bodies are not 'IN space' but are spatially extended" then the link between his logical conceptions and what we now know empirically become clear.

The Sun's spatial extension is the heliosphere, Earth's is the plasma(iono/magneto)sphere, The Galaxies is the Halo, etc. etc. Light does c wrt the dominant local 'body' within the local limits of each domain or 'spatial extension'. So we have a model with each is a local 'discrete field.' Frequency/wavelength shift is the evidence of the change from one bodies kinetic domain to another (via absorption and atomic scattering at the new c).

The problem is that the physics of this are so simple that even if Orwell's 'Crimestop' can be overcome and it can be 'seen', then it has to be ignored or the top academics will have to explain why they've failed to see it.

So humankind may be condemned to failure to save embarrassment. Would we call that 'intelligence'?

Not sure about your reason for why he viewed ether the way he (and others) did. I am on 'dodgy ground' here, ie would have to re-check, but I thought it was to do with their conception of what ether and light was, and hence the interrelationship. Where does the concept of 'preferred background frame' come from? And remember that in a closed system you can get an absolute, and we are a closed system. And as you know, I do not agree with your 'c wrt medium' concept, unless you reference everything else to that.

Well, that is what the man said, so I wouldn't want any credit. Of course, it is said against the background of the 'elasticity' of matter. In respect of your other quote, though I'd have to re-check that, I thought his point about "spatially extended" was a reference to the forces that any given body generates. That is, there is the body per se, then the effect it can exert, which gives the body a 'sphere of influence' greater than its actual physical size.

Forget the valuation of the speed. The point is that light starts at the same speed, everywhere, evertime. It then may be affected by various factors that alter that speed (and direction), by amounts which are again constant in all such circumstances. Putting a value on this, is only about establishing differences. That is, the choice of reference point is irrelevant for the purpose of achieving this, so long as once invoked, that reference point is the only one utilised.

No, it's not intelligence, it's survival. I made a comment on this in my post to Ray just now.

The confusion about light and ether goes back centuries. I've studied science history all my life (it's just called 'Science' in academia) and interesting little jewels still keep emerging. It's complex, and views were as disparate as they are now.

The 'preferred background frame' was the common term for the 'absolute' frame (assuming all ether was fixed wrt the centre of the universe) which had to be removed for the purely relative speed and 'Simultaneity' in 'SR'. (EMB Kinematics). What he did not consider then was the many smaller 'closed systems' in the Universe, such as our 'barycentric' heliosphere, through which light and all other signals goes through at c wrt the Sun (witness Pioneers, Voyagers etc.)

I suggest the only reason you don't agree with 'c wrt medium' (actually c/n) is due to not doing your empirical homework or thinking it through. It always is found at c/n in any medium. As we can only ever 'see' light moving through a vacuum by means of interaction with any medium then the mists should clear.

Q "I thought his point about "spatially extended" (1952) was a reference to the forces that any given body generates." Not at all. Just like his space s moving within S, he is considering kinetics, light speed, and referring to space itself. True, he never quite found the above completed ontology, but only because there was no space travel to prove the diffuse medium there. We do not have the same excuse!

Remember that even a perfect vacuum in Earth is teeming with particles.

And how could they 'measure' particle speed in the vacuum of the LHC pipe if not against the em field, static wrt the pipe and magnets. Logical consistency allows no other ontology. It doesn't matter if it's 'ether' or particle motion as a group, c is c with respect to it alone, nothing else. Here the postulates are proven.

Q; "light starts at the same speed, everywhere, evertime." Agreed. and also 'RE-starts' at the same speed when absorbed and re-emitted by the local particles, which process defines the local c.

Unless of course it is given a docket when it leaves an original emitter, which it has to hand to each particle it meets on the way out (ionosphere) and across space so that it can be re-emitted at different speeds wrt each particle, each of which has to work out how fast the original emitter was going wrt the particle to set the emission speed each time! Wow! You may like that one but no matter how hard I try I really can't accept it.

However, I do have to agree that, if you do believe it as your logic must dictate, then you are in the greater majority against my small minority. Or perhaps you may have now seen a slightly different light?

1 I think my question was really, did Einstein use this phrase ‘preferred background frame.’? And (ie I think these points are related) the only reason I don't agree with 'c wrt medium' is if different reference points are used to establish quantities, and then these are compared. Comparison can only be based on a common reference point.

1 I think my question was really, did Einstein use this phrase ‘preferred background frame.’? And (ie I think these points are related) the only reason I don't agree with 'c wrt medium' is if different reference points are used to establish quantities, and then these are compared. Comparison can only be based on a common reference point.

2 Can you please confirm that the reference to “spatially extended” is in the 14th para of section entitled The Field. His whole point is that one has bodies which can be represented by co-ordinates (a particle being one point), and that one only has bodies. That is, one should not think of space, as such. Space is a corollary. Space (or the ether) is that which is not occupied by particles. It can be both intrinsic and extrinsic. Fields maintain the space between bodies.

Furthermore, he is stressing how the ordinary rules which presume fixedness are not appropriate. Because, bodies are somewhat amorphous: “The subtlety of the concept of space was enhanced by the discovery that there exist no completely rigid bodies.” [Indeed, he then describes an aspect of the process whereby shape changes: “All bodies are elastically deformable and alter in volume with change in temperature”].

Now, whether it is this or one of the other explanations, is irrelevant. The logical point is that he is postulating a reality where there is elasticity of matter induced by force applied. This is the physical factor. What actually (according to him) happens. A consequence, not a factor, of this is that timing will be different from that which would have otherwise obtained had there been no elasticity. But time is not understood, and is confused with timing. The mistake being ‘set in stone’ with space-time.

Notice the sentences in the paragraph above (ie 13th). “But on the basis of classical mechanics this four-dimensional continuum breaks up objectively into the one-dimensional time and into three-dimensional spatial sections, only the latter of which contain simultaneous events. This resolution is the same for all inertial systems. The simultaneity of two definite events with reference to one inertial system involves the simultaneity of these events in reference to all inertial systems. This is what is meant when we say that the time of classical mechanics is absolute”.

Particularly “only the latter of which contain simultaneous events”. So what is time then. This is nonsense. And is not what was ‘meant’ (though it was misunderstood then as well) by time being absolute in classical mechanics; just what it has been interpreted as being on the basis of erroneous conceptualisation. The simultaneity of events is their occurrence (existence) at the same point in time (ie timing). Note the first half of the sentence which includes “spatially extended”: “The four-dimensional continuum is now no longer resolvable objectively into sections, all of which contain simultaneous events”. Time is being reified as a characteristic of reality and ‘double counted’. By definition, physical reality can only have spatial dimension (however many there might be). Change then occurs. The frequency of that change is (mis-labelled as) time. His stress on “inertial”, is because he is referencing to SR, and ‘not-inertial’ involves shape/length alteration.

“Spatially extended” links to “now”. His, incorrect, point being that in this somewhat amorphous world, now loses its meaning. Which it does not. The phrase “spatially extended” can only be read as a phrase intended to encompass ‘bodies is all there is, they are not rigid, and they create a field effect around them which results in space’.

3 “Remember that even a perfect vacuum in Earth is teeming with particles.” That’s an oxymoron. But I know what you mean, and think we have had this exchange before. To what extent can any given spatial point have ‘nothing’ in it? Is the answer by virtue of the fields which keep ‘stuff’ apart. Apart meaning there is space. And/or is it within these spatial gaps that ‘free’ elementary particles can move?

4 “and also 'RE-starts' at the same speed when absorbed and re-emitted by the local particles, which process defines the local c”. How can it “re-start”, since that means that the image (which is a function of some form of configuration) would be lost. It can get ‘distorted’ by travelling through certain media. Unless what you are actually saying is that a ‘number’ of photons which carry an image (these being followed by another ‘number’ with the subsequent image, etc) travel in such a way that at each point in time they are somehow ‘refreshed’ without that image (configuration) being compromised. Indeed, that sounds more like the chain-effect approach, I have put forward in the past. That is, nothing travels as such. What happens is that the ‘signature/configuration’ (whatever is realisable to us as an image) transfers across a distance by affecting ‘something’ in a chain of ‘somethings’. Either way, OK so light speed is maintained in those circumstances. Sounds reasonable, and is not ‘wrt medium’, but a physical reality.

Here I found a page of Fritzius who corrected my last IEEE paper. He provided an original paper by de Sitter which seems to have disproved the emission theory by Ritz for good. If e.g. Marmet is correct and the Michelson experiment meaningless, then I prefer Maxwell's idea of light.

Einsteiniana: "If the frequency varies with the speed of the observer, then the observer measures the wavelength to be variable as well so that the speed of the light wave relative to him can gloriously remain constant and that's it and yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Einsteinians,

Let us assume that the wavelength of the light wave, unlike the wavelength of any other wave, somehow appears variable to the observer so that the speed of the wave relative to him can gloriously remain constant and that's it and yes you all etc. Then why does this (apparent?) variation of the wavelength of the light wave produce a (measurable) frequency shift identical (f'=f(1+v/c)) to the frequency shift produced by the movement of the observer on any other wave (note that the wavelength of any other wave appears constant to the observer)? Why does this (apparent?) variation of the wavelength of the light wave precisely produce the frequency shift predicted by Newton's emission theory of light? Clever Einsteinians that are still on Einsteiniana's ship know the answer to these questions:

Einsteinians admit that the frequency of ANY wave varies as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf

Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. (...) By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. (...) We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. (...) Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2)."

The emission theory also says that, in the above scenario, the wavelength of light remains constant:

L' = L

while the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies in accordance with the equation:

c' = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)

Needless to say, Einsteinians fiercely reject the last equations but then the crimestop seizes them. So the questions L'=? c'=? have remained unanswered for a century:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

I'll leave you with a solution to your Chinese puzzle elevator; In the elevator frame the light does c (c/n if in a medium) at the emitted frequency and wavelength.

If it's a glass wall climbing elevator, then when observed from the Earth frame ( ECRF) 'Proper Time' does not of course apply and the visible evidence of the light having passed (sequential scatterings...

I'll leave you with a solution to your Chinese puzzle elevator; In the elevator frame the light does c (c/n if in a medium) at the emitted frequency and wavelength.

If it's a glass wall climbing elevator, then when observed from the Earth frame ( ECRF) 'Proper Time' does not of course apply and the visible evidence of the light having passed (sequential scatterings from gas particles) will be measured at apparent c/n plus v (v being whatever elevator speed at the moment of measurement). The frequency can't of course be measured from another frame if it can't be 'seen', so we'll use a strobe and gas. Apparent frequency will be higher wrt the ECRF. Calculated measurement of wavelength (trig will do it) does not change.

If the light is shone from roof level through the glass ceiling of the lift however the situation will become even clearer. (We'll use the strobe and gas medium so we can measure things)

The observer in the lift will then find the emitted frequency reduced. He will also find the light doing c locally, and wavelength increased. This is because when meeting the glass roof each strobe pulse was slowed to the c/n of glass (n=1.55) so the next pulse caught up, initially reducing wavelength but, as the lift was also moving away from the source, then the glass was further from the source as each subequent pulse hit, slightly increasing time t between waves (but not yet wavelength).

When the light was re-emitted by the glass into the gas (air perhaps) it sped up to c/n for air (n=1.0003) or c if a vacuum (n=1), opening up the wavelength again. It would go back to emitted wavelength but for the motion of the glass away from the emitter, so it is increased. As it has a greater wavelength it will have a lower frequency, because it was (continually) re-emitted AT C by each moving (lift/air particle) via standard atomic scattering.

The observer at rest in the ECRF looking into the lift sees the waves 'stretched out' on entering the moving lift, but the apparent frequency is identical! This is because the speed increases to c plus v, which conserves c = d/t.

All this finally makes consistent sense of the constant c = d/t. If one part of it changes so must one other to balance it and conserve the third.

Measurements involving time are only of course valid when using 'Proper Time'. This can only be used from the frame in which the motion is being measured. All other observer frames (states of motion) will therefore find c plus v, but nothing in fact DOES c plus v. This is important. Neither the original light, nor the scattered signals from the air particles informing the observer in the ECRF of the passing of the strobe pulse, actually move at greater than c.

This has been very poorly understood to date. It is not mainstream physics, or Special Relativity (though consistent with co-variance), but neither is it the simplistic version of emission theory. It is however 5 things; a complete emission theory, truth, nature, ontological and fully falsifiable.

It is also very simple; inertial frames are real and physical. Unfortunately it does seem to take exceptionally high kinetic visualisation skills and intellect to comprehend, and also perhaps to overcome Crimestop. I'll try to find a better way to generate the kinetic visualisation needed. A video will hopefully be on the way soon. It's called the discrete field model (DFM).

If anybody does work out the onotology, do leave a message under my last essay and let me know where the key was.

-reference points must be applied with consistency in order to be valid

-observation is observation, not physical reality

-there is only timing, which is an externally applied measuring system to determine either a) what existed at any given point in time, or b) quantification and comparison of different frequencies of change in reality.

Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. (...) By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. (...) We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. (...) Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2)."

In Newton's emission theory of light it is additionally assumed that the wavelength does not vary with either the speed of the observer or the gravitational potential, and one infers that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with both the speed of the observer and the gravitational potential:

c' = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)

This is fatal for Einsteiniana of course but the counteraction seems to be easy: The wavelength does vary and that's it and yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yet clever Einsteinians know that a blunt counteraction of this type, although efficient in other cases, is extremely dangerous in this one. In 1911 Einstein introduced gravitational time dilation based on the implicit assumption that the wavelength does not vary with either the speed of the observer or the gravitational potential. So the counteraction in question could open deep rifts in Divine Albert's Divine Theory. "No counteraction, just silence" is the slogan clever Einsteinians obey.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of...

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

Does Einsteiniana teach that the frequency of light changes in a gravitational field because "its speed increases as it is falling"? Yes and no. Einsteiniana also teaches that the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6: "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are. (...) In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed...)"

In fact, Einsteiniana's teachers practice doublethink. They love doublethink because empirical evidence has shown that education based on doublethink destroys the rational mind irreversibly:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

THE LIE ("always one leap ahead of the truth"): Light does not accelerate in a gravitational field:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

An education based on doublethink is much more detrimental than an education that just teaches falsehood. Even exceptionally rational minds quickly disintegrate when persistently taught that two and two make five, then four, then five again etc.

Silly Einsteinians are unable to practice doublethink - they just teach lies. The Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed the principle of constancy of the speed of light and that's it and yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Students learn the lie by rote, become professors, teach the lie to their students and so the money-spinner works in a continuous mode. Rational minds are paralysed but not irreversibly destroyed. Paradoxically, the irreversible destruction occurs when clever Einsteinians start teaching the truth as part of their doublethink campaign:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Juxtaposing the century of fraudulent literature where the lie is repeated millions of times with John Norton's revelations is fatal for rational minds - they disintegrate irreversibly and succumb to Einsteiniana's bellicose zombies.

The Whole and Nothing But: Insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves like particles, that is, the speed of light varies with both the speed of the emitter and the gravitational potential just as the speed of cannonballs does. In 1887 (the ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis is not advanced yet) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variation of the speed of light...

The Whole and Nothing But: Insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves like particles, that is, the speed of light varies with both the speed of the emitter and the gravitational potential just as the speed of cannonballs does. In 1887 (the ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis is not advanced yet) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory:

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

The Fundamental Lie in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world: The Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirmed the principle of constancy of the speed of light:

Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment) and in describing what happens when things move at speeds close to the speed of light."

Next, we shall consider the case when observer moves and the source of the wave is still. In this case the wavelength is not changed and Doppler frequency shift appears because the velocity w of the wave relatively the observer is changed:

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f=(c + v)/(lambda)."

John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

I am a little disappointed that you disregarded my reply. Just saying that current thinking about relativity must be incorrect does not really help progress.I am trying to offer solutions.Solutions to multiple questions and paradoxes and contradictions.

IMO just altering relativity theory slightly as you would like does not give any significant breakthrough in understanding and IMO would actually make the theory less realistic.

I don't think people should be labelled as silly or part of a conspiracy for holding a different point of view from your own.If they are attached to a particular viewpoint it is probably because they can not see or grasp a better alternative -at this time- but are non the less still intelligent, sensible and well intentioned people. Having some notion of what is going on is better than having no idea at all, even if that/those ideas have to be modified in the light of new knowledge or understanding later on. Thats making progress.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."

"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

Einsteinians find the Doppler formula f'=f(1+v/c) safe and fiercely teach it. However they don't know that the formula presupposes that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Fang-Yuh Lo makes this explicit:

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity."

Silly Einsteinians show comprehension by fiercely singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

Then clever Einsteinians urge silly Einsteinians to disregard Newton's emission theory of light - although it correctly predicts the gravitational redshift, it does so by assuming that the speed of light is variable but the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously shown that the speed of light is constant and that's it and yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/

Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt: "...the gravitational Doppler effect (also called the gravitational displacement of line rays) discovered by Michell in 1784 is quantitatively the same as Einstein's."

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "Evidently if the emitter is at a lower value of the gravitational potential (...) the received frequency will be lower than the emitted frequency. This is called a gravitational redshift... (...) It is interesting to analyze the problem using the Ballistic Theory according to which energy is also conserved. The speed of the 'light particles' which have to climb up the gravitational potential well is reduced. Thus according to the Ballistic Theory, light coming from different sources will have different speeds. In fact in 1784 John Michell predicted precisely this would happen and suggested an experiment with a prism to check it. But his prediction contradicts the observed fact (which we use when setting up Special Relativity) that the speed of light received here on earth is universal and independent of its source."

Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

The ecstasy gets uncontrollable: silly Einsteinians tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

In the limit where the speed of the wave is much greater than the relative speed of the source and observer (this is often the case with electromagnetic waves, e.g. light), the relationship between observed frequency f' and emitted frequency f is given by:

Change in frequency delta_f = fv/c = v/lambda

Observed frequency f' = f + fv/c

where f is the transmitted frequency; v is the velocity of the transmitter relative to the receiver in meters per second: positive when moving towards one another, negative when moving away; c is the speed of wave (3~108 m/s for electromagnetic waves travelling in a vacuum); lambda is the wavelength of the transmitted wave subject to change.

_______________________________________

[end of quotation]

For a century Einsteinians have been trying to combine the above formulas with the formula:

f' = c'/lambda

where c' is the speed of the wave relative to the observer. They have had some success with some waves but not with light waves: any time they perform the procedure they obtain c'=c+v which is of course absurd, impossible, disastrous etc. The problem is so difficult that some Einsteinians suspect that it has no solution at all.

The most difficult problem in relativity unsolved at University College London:

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound and light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. We can tackle this case directly in the same way as we treated the moving source. If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance ct-Vo*t, so the number of waves observed is (ct-Vo*t)/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Einsteinians at UCL combine the formula f'=f((c-Vo)/c) with f'=c'/lambda (c' is the speed of the wave relative to the observer) and obtain c'=c-Vo. "That is correct for sound", they say, "but for light... no, absurd, impossible, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Eventually Einsteinians come to the coclusion that the problem has no solution at all.

A second unsolvable problem in relativity: Light falls and even accelerates in a gravitational field but its speed does not change, no it doesn't, impossible, absurd, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies. In the laboratory frame the light ray will be accelerated downward with the acceleration of the laboratory. In a uniform gravitational field the light accelerates downward with the local acceleration of gravity."

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1635.html

Question: "When a photon falls in a gravitational well, does its speed exceed 'c'?" Dr. Sten Odenwald: "No. The frequency of the light just increases or decreases depending on where you are located. The 'local' speed stays the same as measured by someone falling into the well and watching it pass by. This is the only observer who is in what relativity would consider a 'proper rest frame'."

You said, "Light falls and even accelerates in a gravitational field but its speed does not change, no it doesn't, impossible, absurd, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:"

Gravity can change the k-vector (direction) of a photon. Gravity can also change the frequency of a photon. The velocity of light can change, but not it's speed (unless it passes through an index of refraction not equal to 1). But there are two ways to measure the speed.

1. You measure both the frequency and wavelength at a point, which should multiply to c.

2. You measuer how long it takes the photon to travel over some distance. But GR does funky things to distance and the flow of time.

The invariance of the speed of light is protected by this extremely complicating nature of space-time. Good luck with it.

Maybe you did not understand my mutilated (a instead of are) question. Cannon balls have an extension. Therefore cannon balls of orthogonal to each other velocities may collide. Obviously, likewise crossing electromagnetic waves do not disturb each other. Shouldn't we consider this a strong argument against your "pet", considering light as particles like cannon balls?

It is easy to present many many arguments against SR. We have to find the correct alternative and agree on it.

There is no need to find an alternative to SR. It is just an abstraction, a special circumstance. It is unreal, as it does not involve gravity. Einstein said so. So just forget it. The theory is GR. Here is one of many such statements by the man himself:

"The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists. In this connection a Galileian reference body serves as body of reference, ie a rigid body the state of motion of which is so chosen that the Galileian law of the uniform rectilinear motion of isolated material points holds relatively to it… In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity". (Einstein SR & GR 1916 Section 28)

While left and right are just chosen directions, past and future are quite different from each other, at least in reality. I see this a compelling argument against all theories that allow time reversal, e.g. PCT, SR, and spacetime.

I looked for possible flaws and got aware of hidden fallacies in mathematics as well as in the reasoning that led to SR. The main argument of those who are nonetheless believing in set theory and SR is the success attributed to SR.

Einstein was perhaps not consequent or not quite honest when he quasi reduced the rather obviously nonsensical SR to the less understandable to laymen GR, similar to those who substituted Cantor's naive set theory by the linguistically more indifferent ZFC, NGB, or the like. Proponents of these "theories" are still using the argument that those who do not believe them are just not well educated or not intelligent enough.

I see the foundational questions institute obliged to check the very roots of any basic theory for correctness. So far, I consider important arguments by Euclid, Galileo, Peirce, Popper, Shtyrkov, and Marmet, which are at variance with modern theories, not yet disproved.

A patch of space-time is made of sinusoid wavefunctions in time/space; like sin(kx - wt). If energy passes through space, it energizes the wave-functions. Think of a Taylor series of available bandwidth. These wave-functions transmit light at c; wave-functions also border every particle. That's why all light moves at velocity c, according to every particle. When two patches of space are moving relative to one another, the photon of light either changes direction (momentum) or frequency (energy) as it travels from one particle to another.

“While left and right are just chosen directions, past and future are quite different from each other, at least in reality”.

This would be better expressed as: ‘while spatial dimensions have a logical commonality, what is referred to as time is fundamentally different.’ Because what constitutes “past” and “future” in reality are in a sense similar, in that they...

“While left and right are just chosen directions, past and future are quite different from each other, at least in reality”.

This would be better expressed as: ‘while spatial dimensions have a logical commonality, what is referred to as time is fundamentally different.’ Because what constitutes “past” and “future” in reality are in a sense similar, in that they are components of a continuum of existence. But anyway, a better approach is to identify what they actually are:

-in the context of physical reality, the past is that which has existed. The future being a somewhat pointless term since it is nothing. It can only be not the past (what has existed) and not the present/now (what exists). The judgement on which state of existence necessitating a reference point of time (as in timing), ie at a given point in time….

-in the context of perception, the past is that where information about existence has been received by any organism (the point being that there will be differences, since that information has to travel. Indeed on many occasions it will not be received). The present (now) being when that information is being received. The future being that information which exists and can potentially be received, but has not yet been so. Again, by definition, all this depends on timing, ie the establishment of a point in time when the judgement is effected.

Now, the next step in order properly to establish a “compelling argument against all theories that allow time reversal” (which incidentally SR & GR in their original form do not, space-time is the problem) is to identify what time (not timing) actually is in reality. And that is, the frequency at which any given incident of change occurs. To use the phraseology from above, the rate at which, in any given circumstance, the future becomes the present and then the past. THAT is why what is the actual phenomenon that is commonly mis-labelled as time, is irreversible. Because it relates to rate of change, and change cannot reverse. It occurs. So there is no reverse sequence for there to be a rate of. Therefore, any model that allows change to be in “both directions” is not in accord with reality. Finally, present/now is the point at which existence occurs. There I no change at that point, otherwise existence cannot occur, and hence there is no frequency of change. Therefore, there can only be spatial dimensions in existence, which change, and again, any model that does not reflect this is not in accord with reality.

“Einstein was perhaps not consequent or not quite honest when he quasi reduced the rather obviously nonsensical SR to the less understandable to laymen GR.” That is not correct. It would have been better if in 1916 he had published: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies: Version 2. But you are assuming that what was written in 1905 constitutes SR. Which it does not. On many occasions, Einstein subsequently defines SR, and it is only on that basis, after all it is his theory, that one can differentiate SR & GR. And hence what belongs to which IRRESPECTIVE of when it was written. SR is just an abstract state.

“I see the foundational questions institute obliged to check the very roots of any basic theory for correctness”. I agree with that, but one needs to ensure first that one has established what the theory actually was.

"A patch of space-time is made of sinusoid wavefunctions in time/space; like sin(kx - wt)". This may be so, in space-time. But not in physical reality. There any given attribute of an entity changes, which has substance (what changed) and a frequency at which it occured. For comparison/quantification purposes, these frequencies can be compared, which is timing.

"That's why all light moves at velocity c, according to every particle". This may be so. But every particle could be moving at a different velocity. So how does this reference point work? And anyway, is there no such thing as 'patches of space moving relative to one another'? There are bodies, which alter spatial position. Space being that which is not occupied by the body, which could be extrinsic to one body, but intrinsic to another.

Your sinus function extends over all past and all future, anticipating anything.

Paul,

You persistently stressed that reality is closed. Popper called it open. Hopefully we can agree on that our ability to perceive and predict has limits within which we may abstract patterns. Abstract patterns, including those based on theories, can be shifted, flipped, or otherwise changed. If I could make old women young, I was a rich man.

"You persistently stressed that reality is closed. Popper called it open". In which case he was wrong.

In very simple terms, just what is physical reality? Answer: that which can be sensed. It's closed. We cannot know something that is unknowable. Except as a belief, in which case it is the belief, in itself, that is existent (knowable), not that which it appertains to.

Now, moving on from that existential level, to the knowable level, and cross referring to the threads in On the Origins. Another important point is that properly derived objective knowledge has to be deemed to be physical reality, because we cannot know it any other way.

Maybe Popper was not wrong? Why do you limit reality to what I would call a perceived part of reality. Experience told me that the world is obviously much too large as to allow me seeing or even imagining all locations. For instance, the amount of recent discoveries in cosmology exceeds old expectations of experts by far. Do you doubt that e.g. galaxies are real? About a decade ago, just a few were discovered.

I strongly object to the tenet that past and future are more or less similar parts of a continuous block time from eternity to eternity. Isn't this still the most serious deficit in theory? Claude Shannon understood: While we can know in principle what happened, we cannot change the past. While we cannot know for sure what will happen, we can try and influence the future. The late Einstein admitted that this question "worried him seriously".

"Why do you limit reality to what I would call a perceived part of reality"

Careful here, this is not what I am saying, as per a response in On the Origins Topic. For my part I'm not wholly happy with the words I use, but this is to do with the very structure of language which itself embodies certain ways of looking at reality.

The limitation concerns awareness and existence, that these two depend on each other, and we cannot transcend ourselves to acquire an alternative view of physical reality. Though by definition, that would just extend the scope of awareness, because being aware determines what one can be aware of.

What actually manifests in any given circumstance, within this limitation, is entirely different. Indeed, as you say, large/etc, and much of it will never be directly experienced by any organism on this planet. So a better answer to your question is I accept anthing (never mind about galaxies) as being "real" if it is either demonstrably directly experienceable, or properly hypothecated to be so, ie those circumstances where direct experience is unachievable or not been effected yet. Because that is the defintion of "real" or physical reality, ie it is that which is potentially sensorily experienceable by any organism.

It is not block time, that is a flawed concept. My point was that future, present, past can, somewhat obviously, been seen as parts of the same continuum. We cannot change the future or the present either. Once something occurs, we can know it. You do not influence the future, because the future is nothing. It has not occurred. You influence what occurs. In which case Einstein was worrying about nonsense, and need not have worried.

When Cantor begun to realize that his naive set theory is untenable, he got insane. Eventually he lived for some years in a madhouse. Einstein was seriously worried about "the now" at the end of his life. And not just he had all reason to worry. Physics does still adhere to the religious idea that past, present, and future are a continuum: Pater noster in caelo, who was, is, and will be forever, amen.

Already St. Augustinus understood that there is strictly speaking no present between past and future. While the past includes what really happened, future events are not yet real. In reality, the actual moment is something natural that cannot be influenced. No matter whether we abstract from reality with a recorded video or with a mathematical model of a process, the abstraction allows us to shift the considered moment.

Again: The continuum of blocktime is flawed. I cannot now steer what exactly now occurs because influence needs time. There are merely possibilities to influence future processes because the future does not yet exist.

"Einstein was seriously worried about "the now" at the end of his life". This makes sense, because he clearly did not understand time. And although he must take some responsibility, one gets the impression that his basic theory (which is why I asked Tom in On the Origins what is Relativity) 'ran away' from him with its formalisation into space-time and maths reflecting that, etc. He was saying that matter is elastic, so when a force (eg gravity) acts upon it, then it changes dimension. This, obviously, manifests in various ways, including an effect in terms of timing. But he did not understand time and timing, so we get his explanation of clocks being affected such that in their case the outcome is not dimension alteration, but tick rate change.

Past, present, future, are part of a continuum, so long as all this is defined correctly. There must be a present, otherwise there is no existence. The duration delay that must occur for influence to have effect, is not the point. By definition, the future is nothing, it has no existence. We can predict it. We can also influence what occurs. But that is not changing the future, because there was nothing to change. It is having an effect on the present, when it occurs.

My dictionary says when something exists, it is present in the world as a real living, or actual thing. I would like to confront this rather superficial view with the limited speed of transmission of influence and with the clear border between past and future. I did not give up the pre-Einsteinian ubiquitous simultaneity of that border.

Well, strictly speaking there are no point-like events. Nonetheless, there are processes, e.g. the crush between a falling cup and the floor, which proceed so fast that we may neglect their duration. You will agree on that the undamaged cup existed as something real before that crush and will possibly exist as damaged after it. At the very moment of the crush, influences from the past act together and possibly resulted in a change. You wrote: "There must be a present, otherwise there is no existence." I understand this as a fallacy. The notion present time is deliberately fuzzy. It may include past time as well as future time.

Two events may happen simultaneously at different location. How can this simultaneity be checked if the two objects are moving relative to each other? Poincaré's (Einstein's) method ABA is inappropriate. If we know the motion then we can compensate measurements for the used signal's time of flight.

I am disappointed because you are still unable to understand that the continuum of past and future events only extends over the range of something that is assumed to be written for good. In other words, while only the traces of past events are to be seen in reality, physics does not immediately deal with reality but only with abstracted from reality models.

Yes, I would “confront this rather superficial view”, though from the perspective of a dictionary it is understandable. But not on the basis you do.

While I would not use the word “events” (this was John), why do you assert that: “strictly speaking there are no point-like events”? Or a similar assertion: that my statement “"There must be a present, otherwise...

Yes, I would “confront this rather superficial view”, though from the perspective of a dictionary it is understandable. But not on the basis you do.

While I would not use the word “events” (this was John), why do you assert that: “strictly speaking there are no point-like events”? Or a similar assertion: that my statement “"There must be a present, otherwise there is no existence” is a “fallacy?

Strictly speaking there are no such ‘things’ as cup, or floor. Because those ‘entities’ are constantly changing, which raises the question as to what particular physical state of existence of them constitutes ‘cup’, or ‘floor’, or anything else for that matter. They just appear to us to have a constancy of existence.

However, that aside, cup hitting floor will certainly invoke change (in your word-crush). What are these “processes”? In the sense that they seem to be special. Everything is a process. It is just that some processes we can easily sense, others we can conceive of and hypothecate. Then we get mentally stuck because, understandably, we attribute reality with a degree of persistence it cannot not actually have. Unless it has a non-changing state at any given point in time, then it cannot exist.

“Two events may happen simultaneously at different location. How can this simultaneity be checked if the two objects are moving relative to each other?”. Because, leaving aside the practicalities of actually doing so, which is irrelevant to the logic. The two “events” occurred (ie had existence). Now, assuming we can understand conditions for the travel of information about that (maybe it is light, or noise, or heat, or vibration, etc), we can, given spatial relationships, discern when (ie at what point in time) they both occurred by extrapolation from information received. [I might note for the sake of completeness, that if these relative speeds are considerably different, there is then the issue of dimension change, according to Einstein et al. Which in calculating timings would need to be taken into account, because distances (ie spaces) alter as the dimension of bodies alters].

Rather than getting “disappointed”, you need to ensure you have differentiated two different aspects of reality. That is: a) actuality, b) sensorily detectectable representations of that. Both are existent, but in order to know (a) we receive (b). You then need to explain, other than if you do not accept the ‘future’ as non-existent, then what it can be in reality. Also you need to define the phrase “written for good”. Reality occurs, whether an organism receives information about that is irrelevant. Nothing is written or not written. Neither is it just physics that does “not immediately deal with reality but only with abstracted from reality models”. NOTHING does. We cannot “immediately deal with reality”. We can only know of it as objective knowledge. It can only be “abstracted” from information received. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with “models”, they are only wrong if they are not in accord with the reality they purport to represent.

Present time, today, just in this second, and the like may include past as well as future. How long does the present last? In physics, we do not have any justification for attributing a duration to the border between past and future. Instead of stating "there must be a present, otherwise there is no existence” I suggest: existence can only be experienced from what already happened....

Present time, today, just in this second, and the like may include past as well as future. How long does the present last? In physics, we do not have any justification for attributing a duration to the border between past and future. Instead of stating "there must be a present, otherwise there is no existence” I suggest: existence can only be experienced from what already happened.

You wrote: "Everything is a process. It is just that some processes we can easily sense, others we can conceive of and hypothecate. Then we get mentally stuck because, understandably, we attribute reality with a degree of persistence it cannot not actually have. Unless it has a non-changing state at any given point in time, then it cannot exist." My English is perhaps not good enough as to understand e.g. "cannot not". Moreover, I am unhappy with the formulation "any given point IN time" because in my understanding, only processes IN past time are already "written" for sure. The following question of simultaneity seems to be more important:

(E:) “Two events may happen simultaneously at different location. How can this simultaneity be checked if the two objects are moving relative to each other?”.

P: Because, ... The two “events” occurred (ie had existence).

E: This does not yet answer my "how".

P: Now, assuming we can understand conditions for the travel of information about that (maybe it is light, or noise, or heat, or vibration, etc), we can, given spatial relationships, discern when (ie at what point in time) they both occurred by extrapolation from information received.

E: My point is: If the distance between A and B changes during transmission of the signals, the time for a signal to travel from A to B must be equal to the time for a signal that simultaneously travels from B to A.

P: [I might note for the sake of completeness, that if these relative speeds are considerably different, ...

E: You did not specify what velocities you refer to.

P: there is then the issue of dimension change, according to Einstein et al. Which in calculating timings would need to be taken into account, because distances (ie spaces) alter as the dimension of bodies alters].

E: I do not share your belief.

P: Rather than getting “disappointed”, you need to ensure you have differentiated two different aspects of reality. That is: a) actuality, b) sensorily detectectable representations of that.

E: Simultaneity cannot at all be "sensorily detected" from A. Einstein's ABA desynchronized reality. There is no second reality (b).

P: Both are existent, but in order to know (a) we receive (b). You then need to explain, other than if you do not accept the ‘future’ as non-existent, then what it can be in reality. Also you need to define the phrase “written for good”.

E: Written for good means, in reality even the tiniest part of the past can absolutely not be changed any more. In reality all future is still undecided to some extent.

P: Reality occurs, whether an organism receives information about that is irrelevant.

E: Yes.

P: Nothing is written or not written.

E: See above.

P: Neither is it just physics that does “not immediately deal with reality but only with abstracted from reality models”. NOTHING does. We cannot “immediately deal with reality”.

E: Living in reality we are bound to the running border between past and future. Physics deals with abstracted models of reality that can be shifted, flipped, or otherwise manipulated. Hilbert even ignored the arrow of causality.

P: We can only know of it [reality] as objective knowledge. It can only be “abstracted” from information received. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with “models”, they are only wrong if they are not in accord with the reality they purport to represent.

E: The problem is not the limited validity e.g. of weather forecast but the use of mathematical instruments that require extrapolation and completeness up to infinity. Even or perhaps rather because you are a layman, you will hopefully agree on that it is nonsensical to demand inclusion of not yet existing future data in an analysis of measured, i.e. necessarily past ones. Theory dictates to ignore the fact that measured data are limited to the past. This led into apparent symmetries and other serious complications.

"Present time, today, just in this second, and the like may include past as well as future". How can it? Though I would have to ask whether you are referring to actuality &/or perception.

"How long does the present last?" The duration incurred for one point of change to occur in any given attribute in any given sequence of change. In physical reality, this is likely to revolve around alteration in spatial position of elementary particles (ie movement). Because that is what reality ultimately decomposes to, and it probably involves the fastest rate of change. But, leaving aside the issues with identifying this, it does not assist in the understanding of most change sequences. So, as long as the logic is maintained (ie static states changing in substance and at a frequency), then conceptualisation to a lower level of decomposition will suffice. For example, leaf turns brown. The aim would be to determine a sequence of meaningful, appropriate, discrete states, which depict the process (albeit at a conceptualised level). Then one could explain this phenomenon in terms of what happens, why, and the rate at which it occurs (ie the frequency of change from one 'existent state' to the next-commonly known as time).

"In physics, we do not have any justification for attributing a duration to the border between past and future". I know. There is a “border”, so there must be an existence of that, and a duration thereto. This means physics is investigating something for which it has no proper logical definition of. And more importantly, it is conceptualising incorrectly. Because, in common with the rest of the population, it is deeming any given existent state to have change in it. Which is bizarre. Because if that is so, the question is then, what constitutes the physically existent state of any given entity at any given point in time. And anyway, it cannot be more than one. Interrelated to this is the misconceptualisation of time, and worse still, its reification as some form of existent dimension. In sum, the way in which reality is deemed to exist is incorrect.

“I suggest: existence can only be experienced from what already happened”. We can only extrapolate from our knowledge of what existed, when it was in existence, and what is likely to be in existence. This does not alter the fact that what exists is the present.

The word cannot refers to the logic that to have existence in our reality there must ultimately be a static state. “Any given point in time” is correct, because this is about timing, not the phenomenon incorrectly known as time. What is “past time” and “written” (a word you keep using)? Do not confuse the delay between existence, and our realisation of it, as time. Or confuse the existence of representations of reality, which is the information we receive, with the existence of reality itself. Or confuse existence with whether it has been perceived or not.

“E: My point is: If the distance between A and B changes during transmission of the signals, the time for a signal to travel from A to B must be equal to the time for a signal that simultaneously travels from B to A. So what?. We want to know A to B, not B to A. Assuming A is the event and B is a observer. If not, what are they? Then we want to know C to B, assuming C is the other event which you stipulated occurred and at the same point in time, albeit the two have different rates of motion. Then there is one observer “checking”. What is the problem?

“E: You did not specify what velocities you refer to”. Why should I? You stated: “the two objects are moving relative to each other”. I was just making the point, for completeness, that if this involves very high speeds and considerable differences between the two, then the supposed effect on dimension will occur”.

“E: I do not share your belief”. It is not mine, neither is it a belief. In the sense that this is what Einstein, et al, proposed was happening, and it underpins Relativity. But the effects have been morphed into ‘time’. Whether or not it actually occurs needs to be established. But really the point needs to re-discovered first, once the flaws over time and timing have been rectified.

“There is no second reality (b)”. Really? So what is light, noise, vibration, heat, etc? Though I did not call them a “second reality”. I said they are existent representations. That is they are, of themselves, a reality. But due to evolution, they have acquired a role as being the information that we receive, then process, to ‘know’ reality. In other words, for every actual existent state, there are many existent representations of it, and they can exist for longer.

“E: Written for good means, in reality even the tiniest part of the past can absolutely not be changed any more. In reality all future is still undecided to some extent”. No part of the past can be changed. It has occurred. Indeed, neither can the present, because by the time we know of it, it has occurred. Furthermore, by definition we cannot change the present. Because this concept assumes there is already something in existence which can be changed! This is your misconceptualisation of the future. The future is non-existent, it is nothing. It cannot be changed. There is nothing to change. What one is doing is altering the present from that which would have otherwise occurred.

“E: Living in reality we are bound to the running border between past and future…” This was not my point, which was we do not deal directly with reality (which is what you said), we deal with knowledge of it.

“E: The problem is not the limited validity…” Again, this was not my point, which was, since we can only have knowledge of reality, we must use representational devices to depict it. If those are at logical variance with the nature of reality, ie form not content, then there is a likelihood of not generating objective knowledge.

Maybe it would be more helpful for both of us if you did read again and again what I wrote instead of spending much time for an attempt to lecture me. While my English is shaky and sometimes I am loosing extra time if you wrote uncommon expressions, be sure, I am an retired engineer who was already in position to measure with a resolution up to 2 Giga samples per second.

I wrote: ""Present time, today, just in this second, and the like may include past as well as future".

You replied: "How can it? Though I would have to ask whether you are referring to actuality &/or perception."

What about perception, you might consider me an expert in auditory physiology. Let me repeat it quite clear: Our topic here is reality, not perception, not even the of course real indications, which enable us to conclude that something did exist.

Now ask yourself: How can even a picosecond include a part called past of e.g. 500 femtoseconds duration before a sudden change and a subsequent part after it?

As soon as you can accept this, you should try and jump over your shadow and accept my above given piece of advice. I will be delighted if you managed revealing an idol like e.g. Cantor a charlatan.

“I wrote: ""Present time, today, just in this second, and the like may include past as well as future".

You replied: "How can it? Though I would have to ask whether you are referring to actuality &/or perception."

What about perception, you might consider me an expert in auditory physiology. Let me repeat it quite clear: Our topic here is reality, not perception…”

So:

1 The answer to my question was: actuality

2 My enquiry as to “how can it?” was correct. Because in reality the present CANNOT include any of the past.

3 There is no evidence whatsoever of me ‘not properly reading what you write and lecturing you’. Indeed, it is the exact opposite.

4 Because, not only did I read correctly what you stated, and enquired about the possibility of an alternative interpretation. You then do not provide a factually based counter argument, and go on to talk about “auditory physiology” which is not what I am referring to by the word “perception”. A fact that should be obvious, given the 100s of times I have made the point. Or if you did not understand the point, you should have enquired as to its true meaning.

“Now ask yourself: How can even a picosecond include a part called past of e.g. 500 femtoseconds duration before a sudden change and a subsequent part after it?”

You need to ask yourself this, though it is simpler without the quantification. And then “try and jump over your [own] shadow”. How can any of the past be in the present? How can the ‘future’ just become the ‘past’? How can existence occur if there is no present, which must be a discrete physically existent state?

You do, and Einstein did not understand that the notion present does not at all belong into the same category as the strictly applied on physics notions past and future. In our daily life, it is always not feasible, often not necessary and sometimes even unwelcome to strictly distinguish between past and future. Einstein uttered in a letter of condolence to the widow of his friend Besso his credo: For believing [in God and perhaps also resurrection] physicists, the separation between past, present and future is an although obstinate illusion. I see the emphasis on believing. The strict distinction between past and future does not allow something neutral in between. That's my objection to EPR.

What do we mean when we are stating the actual existence alias reality of something?

We may not be sure whether or not of a very remote object still exists, from which we are receiving signals. On the other hand, what we expect to become reality is also not sure. I share the pre-Einsteinian opinion that there must nonetheless be ubiquitous simultaneity of existence in the sense that influences of the same kind from any subject A on any subject B and vice versa from B on A are equally delayed.

Imagine the ubiquitous border between past and future like a snapshot of infinitely small duration. Is this the present you have in mind? A point, a line, and also a real number do not have a non-zero extension alias non-zero measure. They are notions of a different from ordinary life category.

"What do we mean when we are stating the actual existence alias reality of something?".

Given how our reality exists, the answer to that question is: that which occurs without change. From a sensory point of view, it is that which instigated the information which we (and any organism) could receive. [The caveat "could", relates to the fact that we cannot receive all the informationavailable, and neither are the sensory systems capable of discerning everything that is received].

In our daily life we would never get anything done if we concerned ourselves with ontological accuracy. Indeed, leaving aside your language problem, as you put it, there is a deeper issue that all language reflects the way we have developed to think about reality. So even simple words, or constructs thereof, have presumptions within them.

"like a snapshot of infinitely small duration. Is this the present you have in mind?". Yes-ish! You see, the word 'snapshot' implies one of many, or an existent continuum. The point is that there can only be the present. That must be how, and when, physical existence occurs. It must be a discrete physical state without change, because existence can only occur in one state at a time. The future is what we predict/believe will occur, based on knowledge of what has previously existed (the past). Think of reality as a sequence of 'presents' changing at an extremely high frequency. Time is that frequency, and we can time (as in timing)it.

Then, do not confuse this actuality, with the actuality of representations of it, which is what we receive. These exist independently of the reality they depict, and of us, and can persist for a considerable duration (billions of years). And in all cases there is a delay between actuality and the receipt of information about it.

Einstein has no chance to correct what you will hopefully admit: The border between past and future may be compared with the ideal line that represents a street on a map. It has no width.

Let me add something to the issue "What do we mean when we are stating the actual existence alias reality of something?". If something is assumed real, we may not just find its traces. We also may possibly succeed acting on it, again always with some delay. What naive believers like E. consider presence are more or less extended intervals in reality that are nesting the ideal border. What is an action from A propagates to B where it can cause perception and vice versa. In other words, the presence has measure zero as has a point in mathematics.

E: "like a snapshot of infinitely small duration. Is this the present you have in mind?".

P: Yes-ish! You see, the word 'snapshot' implies one of many, or an existent continuum.

E: If a continuum is something every part of which has parts, then it cannot be resolved into ideal points, which have per definition no points. There is no snapshot without exposition time.

P: The point is that there can only be the present. That must be how, and when, physical existence occurs. It must be a discrete physical state without change, because existence can only occur in one state at a time.

E: Mathematicians say: Between any f(x_1) larger than zero and f(x_3) smaller than zero (I am avoiding the symbols smaller and larger because they are risky here) there must be an intermediate value f(x_2)=0. This is valid for a continuum but not for a restricted in principle number of as many discrete values as you like.

P: Think of reality as a sequence of 'presents' changing at an extremely high frequency.

E: While many participants and panelists of the the last contest gave preference to a digital world, the effectively equivalent description in terms of differential equations has proved very valuable. In any case, I see no justification for considering an interval called present between past and future if it is as tiny as Planck time. The notion present is categorically different from past and future. Using the expression "past, present and future" as if present did also have a measurable extension, we are leaving physics.

A “line” CANNOT be a line if it has no width. Just like what has not yet occurred cannot become what has occurred, unless there is a state of occurrence.

“If something is assumed real, we may not just find its traces. We also may possibly succeed acting on it, again always with some delay.”

It is not a matter of assuming reality. It occurs. Whether you assume it or not, and whether you receive information about that, or not. You CANNOT act upon it. It has occurred, and since ceased. Your actions will alter what would have otherwise occurred at some duration later. This is part of the perceptual illusion that we see reality in terms of things, and the fact that we receive a representation of actuality which is delayed. So we have this underlying presumption that the ‘present’ lasts longer than it actually does, and occurs later than it actually does.

My point about snapshot and continuum is as per the above. It is a sequence of ‘presents’ occurring at an extremely high frequency. So there is a form of continuum/snapshot, but only in the manifestation that is possible given how reality occurs (exists).

“E: Mathematicians say: Between any…” Maybe the point here is that zero is an incorrect representational device for reality in this context. I am not sure what your functions relate to, but for most attributes/situations, reality does not have a possible value of zero. It exists, it is not an abstract concept.

“E: While many participants and…” All I can really respond here is: how does the ‘past’ occur if there has been no present? What are we receiving information of? You seem to be concerned about the size of the interval and its “justification”. So was I, at first. I kept thinking I needed reality as a whole to expand to ‘accommodate’ the sequence. Then I’d realise there’s nothing to spatially accommodate. The state that exists has just been superceeded, there’s only one state at a time. That way, what we understandably refer to as the ‘leaf’ has changed colour, in a sequence of existent states.

You are very well read. Leaving aside who said what, either that statement is correct or it is not.

On the subject of EPR. Obviously, right at the beginning I tried to understand this, and indeed, more generally, what constitutes 'quantum correlation'. Whatever I did understand (which was probably not much!) I have since forgotten. In a few sentences can you please put me on the trail of what I should be looking for.

"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! Gravitational Redshift of Light. In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."

Einsteinians at UCSD combine the equations f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2) with f'=c'/lambda (c' is the speed of the light relative to the observer/receiver) and obtain c'=c-v=c(1-gh/c^2). "It all looks so logical", they say, "and yet that is... no, impossible, absurd, Newton's emission theory, help, help, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Eventually Einsteinians come to the coclusion that the problem has no solution at all.

Light behaves like a wave in many respects. But its speed varies with the gravitational potential EXACTLY as the speed of cannonballs does. A second prediction of the emission theory is that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter EXACTLY as the speed of cannonballs does (c'=c+v). Essentially, the emission theory does not predict anything else (so I find some of your counterarguments irrelevant).

You wrote: "It is easy to present many many arguments against SR. We have to find the correct alternative and agree on it."

I partially disagree. First Divine Albert's Divine Theory should be officially abolished and its aftermath removed to some extent. Einsteiniana's idiocy is contagious - it affects dissidents as well so those who offer alternatives are often madder than Einsteinians. In the present situation nobody would notice, let alone appreciate, the "correct alternative".

Carl Mungan: "Special Case II: Moving Observer (with Stationary Source and Medium). Here L'=L because the medium is at rest relative to the source. Absent special relativistic effects, lengths are frame-invariant quantities. Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

At first the only formula brothers Einsteinians see is v'=v+v_o showing how the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Their initial reaction is: "What? No! Impossible! Absurd! Variable speed of light? Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

Then brothers Einsteinians realize that the panic is perhaps not justified - Mungan clearly says "Absent special relativistic effects, lengths are frame-invariant quantities". Now brothers Einsteinians' reaction is: "Yes! Yes! Yes! Oh yes! The moving observer may not be able to change the wavelength outside special relativity but in special relativity he does change it and that's it! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!"

In the end the feeling is gloomy again. Mungan obtains the correct formula for Doppler shift in light waves, f'=f(1+v_o/v), based on the false assumption that the wavelength does not change. Perhaps the assumption is not quite false? Perhaps the wavelength does not vary with the speed of the observer after all? But then... Brothers Einsteinians feel like Dido after Aeneas left her:

Any evidence is double-edged in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world: Divine Albert's Divine Theory is always gloriously confirmed while the competing theory, after being buried for a few decades, may be partially exculpated (but not resurrected):

Alberto Martinez: "The story of Walter Ritz's foray into electrodynamics is instructive for several reasons. Ritz (figure 1) was not one of the elder physicists who objected to Einstein's theory in favor of more traditional approaches; he was young and regarded his approach to electrodynamics as far more radical than Einstein's. Moreover, at first Ritz received more appreciation and support from the established physics community than Einstein. But Ritz's prolific labors ended abruptly when he died in 1909 at the age of 31. His incomplete theory of electrodynamics was rejected. By 1965, however, all of the empirical evidence that had been taken to refute Ritz's approach had been reexamined and shown to be as compatible with his emission hypothesis as with Einstein's theory."

Enjoining and balancing visible and invisible space in conjunction with fundamental instantaneity and fundamental middle [strength] force/energy is the way to fundamentally unify and balance gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism.

Enjoining and balancing visible and invisible space AND the fundamental demonstration/inclusion of instantaneity are fundamental to unification in physics.

The most glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity:

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

A similar wisdom:

In order to measure the lifetime of a driver at rest, one must observe a car coming to a sudden stop into a wall. Lifetimes of moving drivers can be much longer...

The following quotations show that the implications of Einstein's theory are not just absurd. Rather, they bear all the characteristics of statements like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length":

The following quotations show that the implications of Einstein's theory are not just absurd. Rather, they bear all the characteristics of statements like "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length":

John Norton: "Relativity theory tells us that a moving clock is slowed down and a moving rod is shrunk in the direction of its motion. If I am an inertial observer, I will find the effect to come about for the clocks and rods of a spaceship moving past at rapid speed. But if that spaceship is moving inertially, then, by the principle of relativity, the spaceship's observer must find the same thing for my clocks and rods. Relative to that observer, my clocks and rods move past at great speed. So that observer would find my clocks to be slowed and my rods to be shrunk in the direction of my motion. Each finds the other's clocks slowed and rods shrunk. How can both be possible? Is there an inconsistency in the theory? If I am bigger than you, then you must be smaller than me. You cannot also be bigger than me. That's the problem. that each finds the other's clocks slowed and rods shrunk is troubling. But is it a real paradox in the sense of there being a logical contradiction? If I walk away from you, simple perspective effects make it look to each of us that the other is getting smaller. I judge you to grow smaller; and you judge me to grow smaller. No one should think that this is a paradox. That perspectival effect should not worry anyone. The car in the garage problem is an attempt to show that the relativistic effects are more serious than this simple perspectival effect. There is, it tries to show, a real contradiction; and we should not tolerate contradictions in a physical theory. (...) The car can only be said to have been fully enclosed in the garage if both doors were shut at the same time. There is no observer independent fact of the matter as to timing of these events. Therefore there is no observer independent fact as to whether the car was ever fully enclosed in the garage."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html

John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy): "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical. (...) In fact, there is a theory that is not merely observationally equivalent to the Special Theory, but also observationally superior to it, namely Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory."

Which one of special relativity's two postulates is "questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical"? This is a grand secret between Einsteiniana's mavericks but the reference to an "observationally superior" ether theory suggests that the principle of relativity is under attack. And of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why brothers mavericks should not attack the principle of relativity and revitalize the ether theory. What is absolutely forbidden in Einsteiniana is to attack the principle of constancy of the speed of light:

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/

Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009: "The objective of the conference is to discuss the mathematical, physical and philosophical elements in the physical interpretations of Relativity Theory (PIRT); the physical and philosophical arguments and commitments shaping those interpretations and the various applications of the theory, especially in relativistic cosmology and relativistic quantum theory. The organizing committee is open for discussion of recent advances in investigations of the mathematical, logical and conceptual structure of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of the cultural, ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in its evolution and in the development of the modern physical world view determined to a considerable extent by that theory. The conference intends to review the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as developed from the Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how history and philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the accepted relativistic formal structure and the various physical interpretations associated with it. While the organizing committee encourages critical investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently proposed ether-type theories, it is assumed that the received formal structure of the theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not be accepted."

Brian Clegg explains that the 8mm rivet will become as long as necessary so that Einsteiniana's zombies can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html

Brian Clegg: "Here's the scenario. We've got a table with a 10mm deep hole in it. At the bottom of the hole a beetle is happily beetling about, unaware that we are about to fire a rivet into the hole. The good news is that the shank of the rivet, the bit that will go into the hole, is only 8mm long, leaving room for our (rather small) beetle to feel safe and snug. (...) Let's follow the event from the beetle's viewpoint. Down comes the rivet and slams into the table. At the moment before the impact the rivet is still just 5mm long as far as the bug is concerned. But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. It will then send a counter wave back up the rivet and after a degree of shuddering will eventually settle down as an 8 mm rivet in a 10 mm hole. Too late, though, for that bug. Isn't physics great?"

Is Einstein's theory just absurd? No. Einstein's theory is much more than that.

What can a reasonable person do if the officially accepted theory claims that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length? Should one try to prove that the length exceeds the greenness? And if the officially accepted theory claims that both the greenness exceeds the length and the length exceeds the greenness?

According to Einstein's theory, the youthfulness of the travelling twin...

What can a reasonable person do if the officially accepted theory claims that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length? Should one try to prove that the length exceeds the greenness? And if the officially accepted theory claims that both the greenness exceeds the length and the length exceeds the greenness?

According to Einstein's theory, the youthfulness of the travelling twin both has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered and is entirely caused by the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin paradox): Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up again. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: Albert Einstein wrote in 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by Albert Einstein: "...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory. (...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4. This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought up."

Clearly Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than that.

Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, shows how the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer and explains that the speed of light (relative to the observer) does not vary with the speed of the observer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity"

Clearly Einstein's theory is not just absurd. It is much more than that.

Anonymous Einsteinians enthusiastically prove that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

If the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, could that effect be the cause of the gravitational redshift? Of Halton Arp's "intrinsic redshift"? Einsteinians? Einsteinians ready to reply:

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html

"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "I will then try to reconcile the results with the occasional (and not completely unreasonable) claim that "objects traveling at the speed of light fall with twice the acceleration of ordinary matter." (...) It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

"A necessary component of a heat engine, then, is that two temperatures are involved. At one stage the system is heated, at another it is cooled. In a full cycle of a heat engine, three things happen: 1. Heat is added. This is at a relatively high temperature, so the heat can be called QH. 2. Some of the energy from that input heat is used to perform work (W). 3. The rest of the heat is removed at a relatively cold temperature (QC)."

The two temperatures are by no means "necessary". Consider the macroscopic contractile polymers designed by Dan Urry which, on adding acid (H+) to the system, contract and lift a weight:

Urry's polymers are chemical "springs" allowing one to manipulate the force of contraction, thereby shifting the work production in favour of the violation of the second law. You acidify the system (increase the concentration of H+, the hydrogen ion) and the force of contraction increases - the "spring" vigorously contracts and lifts a relatively heavy weight, that is, does a lot of work for you:

Then you decrease the H+ concentration, the force of contraction decreases and the work you spend to stretch the "spring" and restore its initial (stretched) state is less than the work gained previously. So the net work gained from contraction and subsequent stretching is positive.

Of course, the above balance does not take into account the work involved in acidifying and then basifying the system. Note that you GAIN work as you acidify the polymer-containing system by transferring H+ to it, isothermally and reversibly, from a reservoir at higher H+ concentration, but then LOSE work as you move the same amount of H+ back to the reservoir. The behaviour of Urry's polymers - they absorb H+ as they stretch and release H+ as they contract - is such that the net work gained from acidifying and subsequently basifying the polymer-containing system is positive again.

Richard Feynman did not (want to) understand the Michelson-Morley experiment:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all. We shall discuss one of these experiments [the Michelson-Morley experiment] in detail..."

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed that "if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage...

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

"Without recourse to contracting lengths" means that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes Einstein's relativity if the following consequences of Einstein's theory are absurd (they are aren't they):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html

John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Eckard wrote: "Pentcho Valev did not (want to) understand the Michelson-Morley experiment as did Paul Marmet: in "The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment"."

Eckard,

Try to find another idol. Paul Marmet was an advocate of Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/index.html

Newton Physics, Paul Marmet (1932-2005): "18- The Collapse of the Lorentz Transformation (...) For an observer moving relative to the source, the speed of light is never equal to c, just as in the case using Galilean transformations."

Hopefully you will agree on that Marmet revealed: M&M has been misinterpreted. It was designed as to disprove the propagation of light as waves in an absolute space.

This led to alternatives: Lorentz contraction, Ritz's emission theory and Einstein's SR.

Having Marmet's "The collapse of the Lorentz Transformation" at hand, I cannot find any confirmation for your claim that Marmet prefers emission theory even if newtonphysics expresses rejection of Einstein.

I do not consider Marmet an idol. Maybe, he is sometimes not quite correct. For instance he wrote: "in order foe light to be observable by a moving observer, light must necessary reach a remote location and come back to the local observer." I consider this a fallacy which was also made by Einstein in 1905.

Carnot dealt with two reversible heat engines which DID NOT INTERACT. In 1850 Clausius used NON-INTERACTING heat engines again:

http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm

"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme", 1850, Rudolf Clausius: "If we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above process."

Below I will try to show that, by replacing NON-INTERACTION with INTERACTION, one reaches the conclusion that the second law of thermodynamics is an absurdity, not a Law of Nature.

NON-INTERACTION means that the work-producing force generated by the first engine ("substance"), F1, is independent of the displacement, X2, in the second engine ("substance"), and vice versa. F1 is presented as a function of X1 and X2 and the independency condition is expressed as the partial derivative dF1/dX2 being equal to zero ("partial" because X1 is kept constant):

F1 = F1(X1, X2); F2 = F2(X1, X2)

dF1/dX2 = dF2/dX1 = 0

where "d" is the partial derivative symbol. It can be shown that, if the two reversible heat engines DO INTERACT and the conditions are isothermal, the equation:

dF1/dX2 = dF2/dX1

is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics (Kelvin's version). Accordingly, if the partial derivatives dF1/dX2 and dF2/dX1 are not equal, heat CAN, cyclically and isothermally, be converted into work, in violation to the second law of thermodynamics. Consider, for instance, INTERACTING chemical "springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight:

Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons as their length, Lu, increases, whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons as their length, Lk, increases. (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper: "stretching causes an uptake of protons", for Urry's polymers, and "stretching causes the release of protons", for Katchalsky's polymers).

Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, IF THE SECOND LAW IS TRUE, we must have

(dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk

where Fu>0 and Fk>0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of thermodynamics is false.

Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory: A Modern Perspective, Tai Chow, p. 267: "Calculations of the forces between charged conductors immersed in a liquid dielectric always show that the force is reduced by the factor K. There is a tendency to think of this as representing a reduction in the electrical forces between the charges on the conductors, as though Coulomb's law for the interaction of two charges should have the dielectric constant included in its denominator. This is incorrect, however. The strictly electric forces between charges on the conductors are not influenced by the presence of the dielectric medium. The medium is polarized, however, and the interaction of the electric field with the polarized medium results in an INCREASED FLUID PRESSURE ON THE CONDUCTORS that reduces the net forces acting on them."

Classical Electricity and Magnetism: Second Edition (Dover Books on Physics), Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, Melba Phillips, p. 114: "This means that if a system maintained at constant charge is totally surrounded by a dielectric liquid all mechanical forces will drop in the ratio 1/k. A factor 1/k is frequently included in the expression for Coulomb's law to indicate this decrease in force. The physical significance of this reduction of force, which is required by energy considerations, is often somewhat mysterious. It is difficult to see on the basis of a field theory why the interaction between two charges should be dependent upon the nature or condition of the intervening material, and therefore the inclusion of an extra factor 1/k in Coulomb's law lacks a physical explanation." p.115: "Therefore the decrease in force... cannot be explained by electrical forces alone." pp.115-116: "Thus the decrease in force that is experienced between two charges when they are immersed in a dielectric liquid can be understood only by considering the effect of the pressure of the liquid on the charges themselves. In accordance with the philosophy of the action-at-a-distance theory, no change in the purely electrical interaction between the charges takes place."

Common sense forces one to conclude that, if the mysterious pressure pushes the plates apart, then it will constantly pump water through a small hole punched in one of the plates. But the constant flow through the hole can in principle be harnessed to do work and so the second law of thermodynamics is violated. Could common sense be misleading in this case?

It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. We have been looking at only first half of the if true statements in the relative world. As we can see it is not complete with out the then true statements whic are equally true. As all numbers are equal mathematically, so is all creation equal "absolutely".

This proves that 0 = i = ~ or in words "absolutely" nothing = "relatively" everything or everything is absolutely equal. Singularity is not only relative infinity but also absolute equality. There is only one singularity or infinity in the relativistic universe and there is only singularity or equality in the absolute universe and we are all in it.

If you are looking for Universal spiritual bliss, you won't find it in physics or mathematics. Things like cosmic consciousness and nirvana (bliss) are beautiful and meaningful facets of reality. But physics and mathematics are the part of reality that is the necessary evil that allow particles and space to behave in a reliable way.

Physics is more evil than money. At least money says, "In God we Trust". Math and physics tell us we are soulless and godless. Be glad that your computer works; use it to find meaningful joy in theology, transcendental meditation or in service to others.

On the gates of Hell there is a very small encryption; it says: 1 plus 1 = 2 is the basis of all evil.

Physics and Math may be able to explain how things work relative to each other but can never understand why they really exist at all absolutely, only spirituality can lead to the ultimate truth of "singularity" or the self or i or god and it all seems like gibberish or irrelevan or infinite in relativity.

Hi Sridattadev, I still like your style, but still stand by my comment on my thread to the above equations, "Beautiful Nonsense".

However, to Mr. Crowell: I disagree in other contexts that "Writing stuff like 0/0 = 0, 0/0 = 1, 0/0 = 2 is meaningless gibberish, and your proof is an example of garbage in --- garbage out."

For in the context of my essay here, and in the broader context of Boolean Symbology, 0/0 etc are meaningful terms with specific objective interpretations. But you indeed correct in an infinite number of ways that 0/0 in the context of mathematics has no agree-upon meaning. TMG--from the crowded and sinking boat of us non-professional little guys, who are bailing furiously to stay afloat, but the garbage in is of an order of infinity greater than the rate of us bailing... That would be 1/x as x approches zero from the right, Sridattadev. Not the right and the left, as you were probably thinking, you devil you...

And to Mr. Wolfe: I agree with you that relative to money, physics and mathematics is the more evil of the two, for the reason you stated. But that is nothing compared to the emergent fluidic morality of the internet developing. Please try to find my blog on tumbler.com, "Time's Conscience" where this fluidic morality is the subject of on of the blogs. Compared to human morality, the Internet makes money look like a sweet little Cherub. And makes physical and mathematical morality look like Commandments to live and breath by...

The British Journal for the History of Science (2002), 35 : pp 439-467, Constructing a 'revolution in science': the campaign to promote a favourable reception for the 1919 solar eclipse experiments, ALISTAIR SPONSEL, Abstract: "When the results of experiments performed during the British...

The British Journal for the History of Science (2002), 35 : pp 439-467, Constructing a 'revolution in science': the campaign to promote a favourable reception for the 1919 solar eclipse experiments, ALISTAIR SPONSEL, Abstract: "When the results of experiments performed during the British solar eclipse expeditions of 1919 were announced at a joint meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society, they were celebrated in the next day's "Times" of London with the famous headline 'Revolution in science'. This exemplified the general approbation with which A. S. Eddington and F. W. Dyson's results were received, the upshot of which was widespread approval for general relativity and worldwide fame for Albert Einstein. Perhaps because of Einstein's present reputation, there has been little historical analysis of why his theory should have been so celebrated on the basis of a single announcement of the results of one group's experiments. In this paper I argue that the remarkable public and professional success of the eclipse experiments was the direct result of a systematic and extended campaign by Eddington and Dyson and their associates to create interest in relativity theory, build an audience for the experiments, promote a favourable reception for the results and establish their work as a crucial experiment that would distinguish between the gravitation theories of Newton and Einstein. The campaign was motivated by Eddington's affection for Einstein's theory, and was successful largely because of Eddington's substantial credibility."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html

New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."

Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."

Einsteiniana's priests inform Einsteiniana's zombies that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

Zombies remain silent for a while but then continue to sing, as fiercely as possible, "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". However Einsteiniana's priests are merciless - now they inform zombies that light falls with twice the acceleration of cannonballs:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured....

Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

The truth:

One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value in the stationary frame of the ether. In a frame moving with speed v relative to the ether the speed of light is c±v (according to Maxwell's theory). (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, in accordance with Maxwell. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies not only with the speed of the observer (as predicted by Maxwell's theory) but also with the speed of the light source, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Why is virtually nobody willing to either refute or accept Marmet's insight concerning experiments of the M&M type? Well, the consequences might be utterly unwelcome even to you. Perhaps you noticed that Peter tried to compromise with emission theory as well as with Einstein. I contempt dishonest alliances.

Could you please try and provide other arguments against a preferred frame of reference? I will check them against analogous acoustics.

Educator Michio Kaku teaches the false principle of constancy of the speed of light in a silly manner (by telling the blatant lie that the principle was inherent in Maxwell's theory) so Educator John Norton mercilessly rebukes him:

Educator Michio Kaku teaches the false principle of constancy of the speed of light in a silly manner (by telling the blatant lie that the principle was inherent in Maxwell's theory) so Educator John Norton mercilessly rebukes him:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Now it is Educator John Norton's turn to convey the same lie (that the principle of constancy of the speed of light was inherent in Maxwell's theory) by telling the truth. Is that possible? Yes it is - we all live in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world and Educator John Norton is the "subtlest practitioner of doublethink":

John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative to us if we chased after it. The light postulate says no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that observer will always see the light signal traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for his acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the ripple was a quite definite number: c. The speed of a light signal was quite unlike the speed of a pebble, say. The pebble could move at any speed, depending on how hard it was thrown. It was different with light in Maxwell's theory. No matter how the light signal was made and projected, its speed always came out the same. The principle of relativity assured Einstein that the laws of nature were the same for all inertial observers. That light always propagated at the same speed was a law within Maxwell's theory. If the principle of relativity was applied to it, the light postulate resulted immediately."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Clever educators know and sometimes even hint at the fact that, in 1905, the constancy of the speed of light had no justification:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

For the silliest educators the opposite is true - everything that had happened before 1905, absolutely everything, had gloriously proved that the speed of light is constant yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

There are medium-intelligence educators who know e.g. that the speed of light is variable in Maxwell's theory but then how could Divine Albert devise the constant speed of light without any justification? He couldn't, so the justification must have come from the Michelson-Morley experiment:

Yes, "the justification must have come from the Michelson-Morley experiment". That's why I consider Marmet's objection a key: "L'expérience de Michelson et Morley" did NOT "montre" what it was designed for. Its unexpected outcome did not prove anything. Just the expectation was wrong.

Again, you repetitiously quoted the same texts, and you insulted others as "medium-intelligence educators" or "Divine Albert" without at least clarifying wrt what you are speaking of "constant speed of light".

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: Albert Einstein wrote in 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."

Educator John Norton and Educator Albert Einstein 1918 teach that the youthfulness of the travelling twin is entirely caused by the acceleration she has suffered:

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by Albert Einstein: "...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory. (...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4. This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought up."

Educator David Morin teaches that the youthfulness of the travelling twin both has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered and is entirely caused by the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Example (Twin paradox): Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. Show that B is younger than A when they meet up again. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox, as Problem 11.2 shows."

AIP Conf. Proc. 643, pp. 430-435, Pentcho Valev 2002: "...as two vertical constant-charge capacitor plates partially dip into a pool of a liquid dielectric (e.g. water), the liquid between them rises high above the surface of the rest of the liquid in the pool. Evidently, if one punches a macroscopic hole in one of the plates, nothing could prevent the liquid between the plates from leaking out through the hole and generating an eternal waterfall outside the capacitor. This hypothesis has been discussed on many occasions but so far no serious counter-argument has been raised."

Experimental demonstration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg

"Liquid Dielectric Capacitor"

More argumentation:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node44.html

"However, in experiments in which a capacitor is submerged in a dielectric liquid the force per unit area exerted by one plate on another is observed to decrease... (...) This apparent paradox can be explained by taking into account the difference in liquid pressure in the field filled space between the plates and the field free region outside the capacitor."

The pressure difference will constantly pump water through a small hole punched in one of the plates, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. The hole could be drilled at the level of points 3 and 5 in FIG. 1 below:

This comment seems inappropriate to post here, and I never saw a response to my replies to 'Water Violates... IV' in the other blog on entropy. As I said there; I think it's misleading to call this experiment a violation of the 2nd Law. You'll have to look there, to see why, as I'm not going to repeat my whole argument.

You wrote there: "...any 'pumping' effect which would be observed is at the expense of the supply voltage, ambient heat of the bath, and so on. My guess is that the 2nd Law is not violated in these experiments, at all."

Yes the pumping effect is at the expense of ambient heat of the bath. See a tentative explanation here:

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.pdf

August 12, 2004, Pentcho Valev: Biased Thermal Motion and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Your interest in the second law of thermodynamics appears to me to mean that you would argue that: There are two objects with unequal momentums colliding and that the object with the lower momentum can, under circumstances you are invited to clarify, increase the momentum of the object that already had the higher momentum at the cost for the lower momentum object of lowering its already lower momentum. Is this correct?

Albert Einstein 1920: The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential but this by no means implies that it varies with the speed of the source or observer:

http://bartleby.net/173/22.html

Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light). Since it has often been contended by opponents of the theory of relativity that the special theory of relativity is overthrown by the general theory of relativity..."

The opponents were right. There is a VALID argument based on Einstein's equivalence principle (Einstein was well aware of it): If light falls in a gravitational field like all material bodies, that is, in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2), then, in the absence of a gravitational field, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with v, the speed of the source or observer, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v. Illustrations:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.html

Albert Einstein: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/c^2)."

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the...

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY."

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538

Paul Davies 2003: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

The Great Revolution did not show up ten years ago (Einsteinians continued to extract career and money from "THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL") but in 2012 it is around the corner again (shock, horror!):

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar

DISCOVER March 2012: OVERTURNING EINSTEIN: "From a farmhouse in the English village of South Newington, a gentleman scientist plots to upend Einstein's model of space, time and gravity - and send physics off on a bold new course. (...) Julian Barbour cuts an unlikely figure for a radical. We sip afternoon tea at his farmhouse in the sleepy English village of South Newington, and he playfully quotes Faust... (...) His love of Goethe's classic poem, about a scholar who sells his soul to the devil in exchange for unlimited knowledge, is apropos. (...) While other scientists tread softly around the edges of Einstein's theory, hoping to tweak it into compliance, Barbour and a growing cadre of collaborators see a need for a bold march forward. They aim to demolish the space-time fabric that stands as Einstein's legacy... (...) Julian Barbour: "Every one thought Einstein was the greatest figure after Newton, so I took it on trust, almost like someone indoctrinated into a religion"."

Bravo, Julian Barbour! Those who killed science will have to resurrect it now - nobody else could be involved - Einsteiniana's zombies destroyed all reasonable heretics:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

It would be very generous of you, Julian Barbour, if possible, to lift this status of "unperson". For instance, Bryan Wallace did not sell his soul to the devil and wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed. Could he become a person (who has existed) again?

RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367. ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c." INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Bryan Wallace: "Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]

Julian Barbour: "The greatest need is for an EXPLANATION OF THE HUBBLE RED SHIFT THAT DOES NOT RELY ON EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE. (...) The estimates of section 7 show how readily the scale-invariant potential energy can increase if the universe becomes more clumpy. Scale-invariant gravity must, in the first place, yield a cause of the Hubble red shift. The only plausible candidate that I can see is this change in the 'potential' of the universe induced by such clumping. It is suitably great and, according to the standard model, has been happening since the end of inflation. Therefore, the conjecture has to be that somehow the change in potential causes the Hubble red shift. This is not inherently impossible. We know that differences in the gravitational potential give rise to a gravitational red shift."

DISCOVER March 2012: OVERTURNING EINSTEIN: "From a farmhouse in the English village of South Newington, a gentleman scientist plots to upend Einstein's model of space, time and gravity - and send physics off on a bold new course. (...) Julian Barbour cuts an unlikely figure for a...

DISCOVER March 2012: OVERTURNING EINSTEIN: "From a farmhouse in the English village of South Newington, a gentleman scientist plots to upend Einstein's model of space, time and gravity - and send physics off on a bold new course. (...) Julian Barbour cuts an unlikely figure for a radical. We sip afternoon tea at his farmhouse in the sleepy English village of South Newington, and he playfully quotes Faust... (...) His love of Goethe's classic poem, about a scholar who sells his soul to the devil in exchange for unlimited knowledge, is apropos. (...) While other scientists tread softly around the edges of Einstein's theory, hoping to tweak it into compliance, Barbour and a growing cadre of collaborators see a need for a bold march forward. They aim to demolish the space-time fabric that stands as Einstein's legacy... (...) But numerous experiments failed to discover any evidence of the ether, and Einstein realized the speed of light must stay constant no matter which direction it came from or how an observer moved. That understanding contradicted Newton's view of space. In his physics, you could catch up to anything, even light, if you moved fast enough. But if the speed of light holds steady no matter where you were or how you were moving, it would always seem to zoom away from you at the same constant 186,000 miles per second. Einstein enshrined that principle in his first theory of relativity (special relativity), which states that you can never catch up to a light beam no matter how hard you might try. Barbour first heard these ideas as a teenage schoolboy in the early 1950s, a time when Einstein was still alive. As a 3-year-old child Barbour had earned the nick-name "Why?" from a friend of his mother's because of his ever curious nature. Yet upon learning of relativity, he uncharacteristically did not question it. "I was lost in admiration" he says. "Everyone thought Einstein was the greatest figure after Newton, and so I took it on trust, almost like someone being indoctrinated into a religion"."

You are still indoctrinated, Julian Barbour - the enchantment is irreversible. So you will always repeat the lie that "numerous experiments" had urged Einstein to advance his false light postulate in 1905. Your brothers Einsteinians do tell the truth sometimes but that is part of their exercise in doublethink (so they are just as irreversibly indoctrinated as you are):

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

GRAVITY ENJOINS AND BALANCES VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE SPACE. THIS IS WHY GRAVITY CANNOT BE SHIELDED. GRAVITY AND INERTIA, INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE, ARE KEY TO STABILIZED AND FUNDAMENTAL DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE. IF SPACE IS EQUALLY, AND BOTH, INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE, THEN GRAVITY AND INERTIA CAN BE BALANCED AND EQUIVALENT (BOTH AT HALF/MIDDLE STRENGTH FORCE/ENERGY) IN KEEPING WITH BALANCED ATTRACTION AND REPULSION, FUNDAMENTAL FORCE/ENERGY, MIDDLE DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE, AND FUNDAMENTAL INSTANTANEITY. DREAM SPACE IS SEMI-VISIBLE. DREAMS DEMONSTRATE ALL OF THIS IN THIS POST. THE BODY IS FUNDAMENTAL TO PHYSICS.

Nature 477, 567-569 (29 September 2011), Gravitational redshift of galaxies in clusters as predicted by general relativity, Radoslaw Wojtak, Steen H. Hansen, Jens Hjorth: "According to the theory of general relativity, light emitted from galaxies moving in the gravitational potential...

Nature 477, 567-569 (29 September 2011), Gravitational redshift of galaxies in clusters as predicted by general relativity, Radoslaw Wojtak, Steen H. Hansen, Jens Hjorth: "According to the theory of general relativity, light emitted from galaxies moving in the gravitational potential well of galaxy clusters is expected to be redshifted proportionally to the difference in gravitational potential phi between the clusters and an observer, i.e., z_gr = (delta phi)/c^2, where c is the velocity of light in vacuum."

Einsteinians couldn't be more excited. Light loses frequency as it is escaping a gravitational field, just as predicted by Divine Albert, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity, and then the observer on the Earth gloriously measures this decreased frequency, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity. And even more excitingly, Divine Albert has predicted the same effect for the speed of light: Light loses speed as it is escaping a gravitational field, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity, and then the observer on the Earth gloriously measures this decreased speed, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gravity.html

Albert Einstein 1911: "If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/c^2)."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

Wait wait... Slow light reaches the Earth?!? But this... No this is by no means a glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory... This is rather... Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity!

No help is coming and Einsteinians sing, in despair, "Lasciatemi morire" and "When I am laid in earth":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q99q_0zcc_U&feature=related

Lasciatemi morire! Let me die! Let me die! And how can I possibly be consoled? In this cruel fate? In this great suffering? Let me die!

It is absolutely obvious to the subtlest practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana that, as the observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavelength of the light heading towards him automatically decreases so that the speed of the light (relative to him) can gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe...

It is absolutely obvious to the subtlest practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana that, as the observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavelength of the light heading towards him automatically decreases so that the speed of the light (relative to him) can gloriously remain constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity:

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Yet naïve people (quite similar to the innocent child from "The Emperor's New Clothes") often discover that the wavelength of the light heading towards the observer simply cannot depend on his movements and therefore it is the speed of light relative to the observer, not the wavelength, that shifts as the observer starts moving towards the source:

Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

"Moving Observer - frequency increases if the moving towards, decreases if moving away. Wavelength does not change. The actual speed of the wave does not change but to the observer the speed appears to change."

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.htm

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

Yes it is very easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c):

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf

Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

Clearly the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) because the speed of the light (relative to the observer) shifts from c to c+v. Both shifts can be seen on this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w

"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity"

To Dr. Ricardo Eusebi the speed of light (relative to the observer) appears to be variable but he pronounces it to be constant. So would do any true Einsteinian:

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Einsteinians look at the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) varying with the speed of the observer and the wavelength remaining the same, but see the wavelength varying with the speed of the observer and the speed remaining the same. A student who wants to become a physicist should learn to obey this white-is-black principle introduced by Ignatius of Loyola:

"INTRODUCTION: Our ears detect changes in the frequency of sound waves due to the Doppler shift, but the waves change in another way, too: in their wavelength. Wavelength and frequency are closely related: if one increases, the other decreases. Their product, the speed of the wave, remains the same. The spaceship in this interactive has an instrument which detects electromagnetic radiation. You can see the wavelength and frequency change as the ship and the source of radiation move through space. EXERCISES: 2. Now click on the "Observer Approaches" button. The ship will start flying towards the source. What is the wavelength of the waves now, as the ship approaches the source? Does the frequency increase or decrease? SOLUTIONS: 2. The wavelength shrinks so that about three waves now fit within the graph. (...) The frequency increases."

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed v (relative to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation v'=v(1+gh/v^2) (it is assumed that v>>(v'-v) and air friction is ignored).

The speed of light emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

The identical acceleration suffered by cannonballs and photons gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory, yes we all believe in relativity relativity relativity. It also confirms Newton's emission theory of light but in an insignificant and even despicable manner.

You did move on temporarily to your concerns abut the second law of thermodynamics. Since your concerns did not involve thermodynamic entropy, I had no questions. I may have missed reading something either about entropy or the speed of light, but, you have returned once again to the 'falling' speed of light. You say:

"The identical acceleration suffered by cannonballs and photons..."

I kind of remember asking for empirical evidence to support this position. Do you know of a measurement of the speed of light that confirms your position? I have my own understanding of this circumstance, but, my interest in this message is about your understanding. Is your position one of a choice of theoretical interpretation or is it based upon empirical evidence that shows that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth? I know that the frequency increases. I have read your explanation for why that frequency increases. You use equations for support. Physicists are familiar with those equations, so am I. I am not asking about your interpretation or chosen use for those equations, I am asking if you know of any measurement of the speed of light that confirms that it is increasing as the light approaches the Earth? Thank you.

Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf

Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm

Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

Can you shorten your list to a single best reference that gives empirical support for light increasing its speed as it approaches the Earth? Empirical support, for me, means a convincing experimental result. The best experimental result is one that is difficult to misinterpret. What is you best empirical evidence to support your position that the speed flight increases as it approaches the Earth?

That "the speed flight increases as it approaches the Earth" is not MY position. It is the position of both Einstein's general relativity and Newton's emission theory of light. In my view, the best empirical evidence that supports the position of Einstein's general relativity and Newton's emission theory of light is the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment.

Could I please ask, is the word 'light' here referring to photons as such, or whatever the 'effect' is therein, which is realisable as an optical image. Or indeed both, because they are inseperable. The underlying question there being how does that 'effect' travel.

Light always travels at the same speed, the speed of light c = 2.998x10^8 m/s. Velocity denotes speed and direction. Gravity can change the direction of light. Since acceleration is defined as a change in velocity with respect to time, then technically light can accelerate. But its speed remains constant.

"...In my view, the best empirical evidence that supports the position of Einstein's general relativity and Newton's emission theory of light is the result of the Pound-Rebka experiment. ..."

Ok. The result of that experiment can be and is successfully predicted by treating light as if it accelerates in the same manner as do objects. The Pound-Rebka experiment could be interpreted as support either for or against general relativity. So it is not empirical confirmation of the theory of relativity. The problem remaining is that it also does not measure the speed of light as it approaches the Earth.

I am not challenging your disbelief in the theory of relativity. I am asking if you know of empirical support for your claim that light increases its speed as it approaches the Earth? My point is that theory is not enough. If you wish to fill your messages with exaggerations about the character, intelligence, professionalism, and honesty of physicists who support the theory of relativity, you need to do more.

Your emphasis upon one experiment, that does not involve measuring the speed of light, is not enough to win your case that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth.

For other readers: It may be clarifying to some readers for me to explain that I refer to the increase of the speed of light instead of the acceleration of light because acceleration can be either positive or negative. In other words, if the speed of light slows as it approaches the Earth it is undergoing acceleration. Its acceleration is negative.

You wrote: "Ok. The result of that [Pound-Rebka] experiment can be and is successfully predicted by treating light as if it accelerates in the same manner as do objects."

Note that the experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVES that light accelerates "as do objects", although the frequency and not the speed is measured. If light did not accelerate or accelerated differently, then the probability that the frequency variation will obey the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), an equation confirmed by the experiment, would be virtually zero.

You also wrote: "I am asking if you know of empirical support for your claim that light increases its speed as it approaches the Earth?"

"...Note that the experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVES that light accelerates "as do objects", although the frequency and not the speed is measured. If light did not accelerate or accelerated differently, then the probability that the frequency variation will obey the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), an equation confirmed by the experiment, would be virtually zero. ..."

That equation assumes that frequency increases due to falling. It is the equation about kinetic energy increasing that is the basis for assuming that the frequency of light increases. Objects, other than light, do increase their kinetic energies as they fall toward the Earth. What must be shown, before your exagerations regarding character and intelligence, etc. is that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth.

You do extensive research about professional opinions and reports to support your view that relativity theory is wrong. However, I suggest that you must research for empirical evidence that the speed of light increases as it approaches the Earth. Before that frequency equation that you site above can be verified, there must be empirical evidence that the speed of light increaes as it approaces the Earth.

The frequency of light might change differently for reasons that are not yet included for consideration. My point is that an experiment that does not measure the speed of light is not evidence about the speed of light. I do not argue in support of relativty theory. I do argue against your claim that "...the experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVES that light accelerates (For other readers, you mean to say that it increases its velocity. I point this out because that is not the exclusive meaning of acceleration which may be either positive or negative.) "as do objects", although the frequency and not the speed is measured.

To Tony Harker, University College London, the speed of the wave (relative to the observer) appears to vary with the speed of the observer and the wavelength to be independent of the movements of the observer. Accordingly, he considers the speed of the wave as varying with the speed of the observer and the wavelength as independent of the movements of the observer, in disobedience to the white-is-black principle advanced by Ignatius of Loyola and adopted in Einsteiniana:

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf

Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound and light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. We can tackle this case directly in the same way as we treated the moving source. If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance ct-Vo*t, so the number of waves observed is (ct-Vo*t)/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Einsteiniana's zombies looking for Tony Harker to have a frank and final conversation with him:

You return to your numbingly repetitive campaign tactic: Attack!, attack! with the same singular argument and ammunition of the wrong kind. Perhaps some anti-relativity 'zombies' will join you. Best wishes to you.

Yes, and another problem I have with all this, even though I am only operating at a simple level, is apart from what is the phenomenon being referred to as 'light', once whatever it is has interacted with 'something', what has previously happened is irrelevant. Most of what we see is enabled by light (as in the 'effect' on photons that is realisable)that is created by an interaction within the environment of earth. Which includes elementary particles, etc. We are not investigating them with 'light' from outside the earth.

Hi Eckard: good point you made that "Of course, Pentcho is not in position to indoctrinate anybody by force." Good thing physics dogma can't be forced onto the Community like the Chinese Water Torture (the pain of a thousand successive tiny drops finally breaks your resolve!), or Pentcho would have us all singing the praises of cannonball-photons due to the volume of his comments and constant haranguing lol. His method is like weather erosion in that way.

Anyway, I was wondering if yourself or somebody expert in quantum mechanics could help me with a specific derivation I can't quite figure out?

In The Principles of Quantum Mechanics by PAM Dirac, the generalization of (forgive me this is a little clunky because I don't have latext equations): 1) Sum over all E' of E'ket E'bra equals 1 (where E' are discrete eigenvalues, and the basic kets are normalized). And 2) The integral over all E'' of E''ket dE'' E''bra equals 1 (continuous eigenvalues of E'').

So the equation I can't derive and need help with is the generalization of 1) and 2), i.e.

(Sum over all E' of [E'ket E'bra]) + (The integral over all E'' of [E''ket dE'' E''bra] = 1

However, from 1) and 2), doesn't this equation equal 1+1=1 (an incorrect equation)? Can somebody shed some light on this?

Thanks. One fantastic benefit of this community is there is noplace better to ask this question and get the right answer!

Oh yes, one last thing about this equation, just in case the answer is obvious. Feel free to trounce me if i'm mistaken, but any basic vector can be multiplied by a number and the resulting vector is the same?

So in this case the equation 1+1=1 would be correct, since if we multiply this equation by E' ket we get

E'ket+E'ket=E'ket

or

2E'ket=E'ket

So in this case the generalization I'm asking about would be correct. Am I on the right track here, and/or have I answered my own query?

When you are dealing with only discrete states, the first sum over states is normalized to one. When you are dealing with only continuous states, the integral over all continuous states is normalized. If you have to deal with both discrete and continuous states, then the entire left side is normalized, since the probability of being in one of the possible states (discrete or continuous) is certainty, that is, 1.